On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 4:58 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Thanks, Thomas, Michael, and Horiguchi-San. I think there are enough
votes on not using a macro that we can proceed with that approach.
This takes us back to what Smith, Peter has initially proposed [1].
I shall wait for a couple of days to see if someone would like to
argue otherwise and then review the proposed patch.
[1] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/201DD0641B056142AC8C6645EC1B5F62014B919631%40SYD1217
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
