Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers fornulls/values arrays
| От | Ashwin Agrawal |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers fornulls/values arrays |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CALfoeitRcpmLiqHNQLGweJX0eP8HQEmPQLPPGG5PsA-ChCPwrA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers for nulls/values arrays (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers fornulls/values arrays
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:49 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Jacob Champion <pchampion@pivotal.io> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:51 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I concur with Joe here. The reason why some of the existing
>> memset's use "false" is for symmetry with other places where we use
>> "memset(p, true, n)" to set an array of bools to all-true.
> Why introduce a macro at all for the universal zero initializer, if it
> seems to encourage the construction of other (incorrect) macros?
Well, the argument is that some people might think that if {0} is enough
to set all array elements to 0, then maybe {1} sets them all to ones
(as, indeed, one could argue would be a far better specification than
what the C committee actually wrote). Using a separate macro and then
discouraging direct use of the incomplete-initializer syntax should help
to avoid that error.
Seems avoidable overhead to remind folks on macro existence. Plus, for such a thing macro exist in first place will be hard to remember. So, irrespective in long run, {0} might get used in code and hence seems better to just use {0} from start itself instead of macro/wrapper on top.
Plus, even if someone starts out with thought {1} sets them all to ones, I feel will soon realize by exercising the code isn't the reality. If such code is written and nothing fails, that itself seems bigger issue.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: