Alexander Belopolsky writes:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Victor Stinner
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> ..
> > I don't know, but the commit is trivial and cheap. If it improves the
> > support
> > on uncommon compiler, I agree to commit such change.
> >
>
> But it does it at the cost of invalidating the "svn blame" for the
> last enum entry now and for future additions. The problem is that
> when you change from
>
> enum {
> ..
> X
> }
>
> to
>
> enum {
> ..
> X,
> Y
> }
If that bothers you, you can write
enum {
A
, B
/* etc */
, X
}
or
enum {
A,
B,
/* etc */
X,
enum_bound_otherwise_unused
}
I prefer the last; it's a compiler (and debugger) space burden, but
shouldn't affect the running python. On the original question, I
think it's preferable to keep compilers happy unless you're willing to
*require* C99.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
