I will apply the proposed change tomorrow. keep the old horse happy. 

//stefan

> Am 26.08.2015 um 23:18 schrieb NormW <[email protected]>:
> 
> G/Morning I think,
> As Bill correctly guesses in a following mail, 'my' OS is NetWare and it's 
> the standard compiler GK has been using for years to build Apache releases.
> 
> And that (Metrowerks CW) (AFAIK) is a C89 legend.
> 
> As I noted in my mail, I would hardly expect to hold back tomorrows http/2 
> protocol for so dated a horse as NetWare, and if you introduced coding or 
> functions that NetWare's compiler doesn't support then it's 'game-over' for 
> the old war horse as far as http2 is concerned. For the moment however I 
> merely suggest an opinion that initializing structures via a list of 
> individual assignments is a better form to read the code than what is used at 
> present, and a small, almost irrelevant side effect of which is that, for now 
> at least, my compiler can keep building http2 for NetWare, with no functional 
> change to the code.
> Regards,
> Norm
> 
>> On 27/08/2015 1:26 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
>> Hi Norm,
>> 
>> I think these type of assignments are part of the C90 standard. I am not 
>> sure we want to support a compiler that cannot cope with that, but I may be 
>> to green to know that. What platform is this on exactly?
>> 
>> //Stefan
>> 
>>> Am 26.08.2015 um 00:53 schrieb NormW <[email protected]>:
>>> 
>>> G/Morning,
>>> Herewith an svn diff that implements line-by-line initialization of three 
>>> structures (no idea if there's a technical term for it) in place of the 
>>> list method now used, e.g struct x = { , , , }.
>>> 
>>> I acknowledge upfront that 'my' somewhat dated compiler cannot handle the 
>>> list method, whereas the method portrayed in the diff is totally acceptable 
>>> to it.
>>> 
>>> However, I find the 'list' method less easier to 'read' as the struct 
>>> elements are not 'visible', and one has to locate the struct definition 
>>> itself to see what is being set to what. The method as illustrated by the 
>>> patch is clearer (to my mind) and not affected by the order of the elements 
>>> within the primary structure.
>>> 
>>> Lastly I noticed at least one case recently where my diff 'simplified' 
>>> because a struct was changed to the _suggested_ method, with the primary 
>>> struct being created by a memset(); perhaps that's a similar change needed 
>>> in these cases also?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Norm
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <cw_reqd_chgs.diff>
>> 
>> <green/>bytes GmbH
>> Hafenweg 16, 48155 Münster, Germany
>> Phone: +49 251 2807760. Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782
> 

Reply via email to