Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> >> Since it is a static, they will already be clear.
>
> > you are right.
>
> Nevertheless it's clean coding style to initialize the stuff explicitly IMHO.
> Because this "ANSI C requires static's to be initialized to 0" rule one often
> forgets when you read through such code parts. Better to be more explicit than
> too implicit.
I don't agree. There aren't that many things to remember about C.
Unnecessary code reduces readability. Also, anyone who doesn't know this
is likely to have loads of problems with loads of code.
But in this case I'm not that worried about it (I might be if it
contained 50 members that needed initialising to zero, though).
BTW, it isn't ANSI, its just C.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Ghandi
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
