GCC will spue a slew of warnings that can be safely ignored and in
some cases are bogus. The pedantic changes only make the code harder
to read and yield very little if any benefits in return. For larger,
more complex structs like zvals it'll only create a meaningless mess.
There is absolutely no reason that any half decent compiler will not
be able to understand {0} for any declared struct.
On 27-Nov-07, at 10:12 AM, Andy Lester wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
On 11/27/07, Ilia Alshanetsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMHO {0} is sufficiently clear for human consumption.
{NULL, 0, 0} brings real structure dimensions to the context, which
is
good (less need to check "headers").
It also means that you don't get compiler errors any more like you
would with {0}. Now, you can know that if there's a warning about
the number of initializers that it's something you should pay
attention to.
The key for long-term maintenance is to clean up the slop so that
the compiler doesn't squawk about it at high levels of warnings.
Then when you do have real squawk-worthy problems, they don't get
lost in the noise of meaningless warnings.
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
Ilia Alshanetsky
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
