Re: Use C99 designated initializers for some structs
| От | David Steele | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Use C99 designated initializers for some structs | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 04abaa9a-8d5d-c229-b239-21bfae184a65@pgmasters.net обсуждение исходный текст | 
| Ответ на | Re: Use C99 designated initializers for some structs (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>) | 
| Ответы | Re: Use C99 designated initializers for some structs Re: Use C99 designated initializers for some structs Re: Use C99 designated initializers for some structs | 
| Список | pgsql-hackers | 
On 8/29/18 5:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 29/08/2018 12:13, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Here is a patch to change some struct initializations to use C99-style >> designated initializers. These are just a few particularly egregious >> cases that were hard to read and write, and error prone because of many >> similar adjacent types. >> >> (The PL/Python changes currently don't compile with Python 3 because of >> the situation described in the parallel thread "PL/Python: Remove use of >> simple slicing API".) >> >> Thoughts? +1. This is an incredible win for readability/maintainability. One thing: I'm not sure that excluding the InvalidOid assignment in the TopTransactionStateData initializer is a good idea. That is, it's not clear that InvalidOid is 0. NULL, false, and 0 seem like no-brainers, but maybe it would be better to explicitly include constants that we define that are not obviously 0, or maybe just all of them. Regards, -- -David david@pgmasters.net
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: