Re: Remain Calm: Designated initializer patches for 2.5

[Marcin Dalecki]

Rusty Russell wrote:
> In message <E17VBcZ-0004oO-00@starship> you write:
> 
>>On Thursday 18 July 2002 05:22, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>
>>>GCC has understood both since forever, but the kernel took a wrong
>>>bet, and we're better off setting a good example for 2.6 before we
>>>start getting about 10,000 warnings.
>>
>>Next time, remember to bet on the ugliest looking one ;-)
> 
> 
> I agreed, until I recently did a big grep to find these things.  I now
> concur with the C9X committee.  ".foo = " is clearly distinguished
> from bitfield declarations and labels, which "foo: " isn't.

Of hand I think about the following *technical* points:

1. It resembles the usage case similar to other initalizations.

2. It makes for less reduce/reduce conflicts in the LR-grammar
parser generator.

Its better and more outtought then the GNU "extension".