On 8/15/18 3:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 08/15/2018 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> Personally, I'd prefer to >>>> continue avoiding // comments and intermingled declarations of >>>> variables and code on grounds of style and readability. > >>> ... which I agree with. > >> A decade or so ago I would have strongly agreed with you. But the >> language trend seems to be in the other direction. And there is >> something to be said for declaration near use without having to use an >> inner block. I'm not advocating that we change policy, however. > > FWIW, the issue I've got with what C99 did is that you can narrow the > *start* of the scope of a local variable easily, but not the *end* of > its scope, which seems to me to be solving at most half of the problem. > To solve the whole problem, you end up needing a nested block anyway. > > I do dearly miss the ability to easily limit the scope of a loop's > control variable to just the loop, eg > > for (int i = 0; ...) { ... } > > But AFAIK that's C++ not C99.
This works in C99 -- and I'm a really big fan. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net