Re: Remain Calm: Designated initializer patches for 2.5
Marcin Dalecki (email@example.com)
Fri, 19 Jul 2002 09:31:08 +0200
Rusty Russell wrote:
> In message <E17VBcZ-0004oO-00@starship> you write:
>>On Thursday 18 July 2002 05:22, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>>GCC has understood both since forever, but the kernel took a wrong
>>>bet, and we're better off setting a good example for 2.6 before we
>>>start getting about 10,000 warnings.
>>Next time, remember to bet on the ugliest looking one ;-)
> I agreed, until I recently did a big grep to find these things. I now
> concur with the C9X committee. ".foo = " is clearly distinguished
> from bitfield declarations and labels, which "foo: " isn't.
Of hand I think about the following *technical* points:
1. It resembles the usage case similar to other initalizations.
2. It makes for less reduce/reduce conflicts in the LR-grammar
Its better and more outtought then the GNU "extension".
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/