Hi Holger,
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Holger Hans Peter Freyther holger@freyther.de wrote:
E.g. in one of the testcases I noticed that you don't use C99 initializers but the old/error prone way of initializing. :)
Yes, I think in this particular case the old way is more compact and thus more readable.
I added C99 initializers to the test (see the patch attached or achemeris/sms-fixes branch) and to me it looks less readable and thus more error prone. If you see any benefits of this patch - feel free to merge it, though.
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 03:14:21PM +0400, Alexander Chemeris wrote:
I added C99 initializers to the test (see the patch attached or achemeris/sms-fixes branch) and to me it looks less readable and thus more error prone. If you see any benefits of this patch - feel free to merge it, though.
Can you squash the two patches and fix the typo in the subject line? The benefit of C99 is being a bit more robust against changes in the struct.