On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 12:40:07PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 01:08:47PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 11:44:52PM -0400, Damien Riegel wrote:
> > > struct mx_ops mx_pop_ops = {
> > > + .probe = pop_probe,
> > > .close = pop_close_mailbox,
> > > };
> >
> > Isn't this initialization style a GNUism? I think we should avoid it.
>
> I looked at this too, but was surprised to find out this is in C99
> (section 6.7.8). <http://c0x.coding-guidelines.com/6.7.8.html>No kidding... Learn something new every day. ;) > We have AC_PROG_CC_C99 in our configure.ac, so I think it should be okay > to start allowing some of the C99 changes in. Do you agree? What, adopting a standard that was only ratified 17 years ago?!?! That's crazy talk! =8^) Yeah I think it's fine, and good. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
pgp1wYVUyCOoR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
