On 1/23/19 12:25 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2019-01-23 12:22:23 -0500, Chapman Flack wrote:
>> ArchiveEntry(fout, dbCatId, dbDumpId, .tag = datname, .owner = dba, >> .desc = "DATABASE", .section = SECTION_PRE_DATA, >> .defn = creaQry->data, .dropStmt = delQry->data); > IDK, it'd be harder to parse correctly as a C programmer though. ... > weirdly mixing struct arguments and normal function arguments seems > quite confusing. Hmm, I guess the rubric I think with goes something like "is a C programmer who encounters this in a source file for the first time likely to guess wrong about what it means?", and in the case above, I can scarcely imagine it. ISTM that these days, many people are familiar with several languages that allow a few mandatory, positional parameters followed by optional named ones, and so a likely reaction would be "hey look, somebody used a macro here to make C look more like <insert other language I know>." On 1/23/19 12:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Can we omit the initial dots if we use a wrapper macro? That, I think, is hard. Getting to the form above is downright easy; making the dots go away, even if achievable, seems way further down the path of diminishing returns. Regards, -Chap
