Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> FWIW, the use of the word "assignment" here left me scratching my head. >>> Reading 33665d98e6b, it is about struct initialization. >> >> Thanks, I missed that confusion in the new description. Perhaps >> another round of reroll would make the series polished enough? > > I could re-roll it, but I also see you extensively fixed it up v.s. my > version. I think a re-roll here would just be > s/assignments/initializations/, so if you wanted to squash that in to > your already extensive squashes... I do not think there has been that much squashing. Unless I took a wrong range-diff in [0/5] of the series, the fix-ups are to reword the proposed log message for [3/5] and to remove an unrelated hunk that does "now we allow it, let's use it" which is better done outside the topic with its own justification (and "it once used to be there" is not a good justification) in [3/5], plus a three-byte grammofix in [4/5]. So throwing "assignments" -> "initializations" into the mix is not too much work for me. Unless I forget, that is ;-)
