Andy Koppe <andy.koppe@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > There are a number of uses of designated initializers already, so > hopefully compound literals aren't too much of an extra challenge. I do not see how one leads to the other here. I'd prefer not to see use of a new construct we do not currently use mixed in a new code, even if it is mentioned in the proposed log message. If we want to use compound literals in our codebase in the longer term, we should first add a weatherballoon use to a very stable part of the codebase that rarely changes, in a single patch that is trivial to revert when a platform that matters is found to have problem with the language construct, just like what we did when we adopted the use of designated initializers. Thanks.
