Hi,
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 04:26:14PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >
> > > Not that I care that much, and I don't know what is done in git
> > > usually. But aren't C99 initializer safer ? (wrt struct
> > > transport_ops API possible changes in the future).
> >
> > No, they are not, since we do not allow such backwards
> > incompatibilifiers to creep into git's code.
>
> It has nothing to do with latest. I feel that if for some reason
> transport_ops need a new function, it will break silentely, whereas if
> you use:
>
> static const struct transport_ops bundle_transport = {
> + .set_option = NULL,
> [...]
>
> It's pretty straightforward to extend the transport_ops API, afaict it's
> what the kernel does e.g.. I wasn't suggesting anything else.
As far as I am concerned, this kind of depending on newer features (this
_is_ C99, right?) will not happen. So the discussion is moot.
Ciao,
Dscho
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
