At Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:30:02 +0900, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote
in
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 06:37:11PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > -1 for these macros.
> >
> > These are basic facts about the C language. I hope C eventually
> > supports {} like C++, so that you don't have to think hard about
> > whether the first member is another struct, and recursively so … but
> > since the macros can't help with that problem, what is the point?
>
> FWIW, I am not convinced that those macros are an improvement either.
FWIW agreed. I might have put +1 if it had multpile definitions
according to platforms, though.
> > I am reminded of an (apocryphal?) complaint from an old C FAQ about
> > people using #define BEGIN {.
>
> This one? Wow.
> http://c-faq.com/cpp/slm.html
I remember this.
Though the new macro proposed here doesn't completely seems to be a
so-called nonsyntactic macro, but the syntax using the macro looks
somewhat broken since it lacks {}, which should be there.
bool nulls[Natts_pg_collection] = INIT_ALL_ELEMS_ZERO;
We could abuse the macro for structs.
pgstattuple_type stat = INIT_ALL_ELEMS_ZERO;
This is correct in syntax, but seems completely broken.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
