lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 2.1.118 Tons of oopes
    > 
    > it seems fairly obvious to me why the structure was changed, well in principal
    > if not in this case
    > the idea that all structures can only be added to at the end is something that
    > is a bad rut to get yourself into
    > it leads to crappy and bloated coding in the name of "backwards compatability"
    > reasonable amounts of backwards compability is good, but one NULL is not going
    > to kill anyone.
    >

    Hmmm I never tried this - but it seems that the way out would be to allow
    (in C) a thing like this :

    struct test { int left; int right };

    struct test var1={left:-1,right:-2};

    This would take care of the need to observe order when initializing a
    struct.. Even if it's not in gcc one could write a tool that does
    preprocessing, automatically putting everything in the correct order..
    Or a lint type tool (so that left is #defined to empty, but it checks
    that the order is right).

    Vladimir Dergachev


    >
    > -
    > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    > Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
    >


    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.040 / U:0.652 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site