Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 05:14:38PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > *This* is the over-engineering attitude I was talking about. The only
> > reason why you are preferring named initializers is because
> > pci_device_id MIGHT be changed. And if it is changed, it makes the
> > changeover just tad easier. For that, you ugly up the code and make it
> > more difficult to maintain.
>
> The other reason is that it makes self documenting code -- no need to look
> up the structure definition to make sense out of the code.
For the general case, that is true.
But note that the general case is usually a -single- structure being
initialized, not an array of structures. Unless the struct members
being initialized vary wildly from one array element to another, using
named initialized it redundant and -reduces- the ability of the
programmer to look at the pci_tbl[] and evaluate its contents at a
glance.
PCI tables do not use named initalizers on purpose. It was not an
accident or design mistake.
Jeff
--
Jeff Garzik |
Building 1024 | The chief enemy of creativity is "good" sense
MandrakeSoft | -- Picasso
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
