Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!seismo!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!meissner
From: meissner@dg_rtp.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Initialization of a two-dimen. array of structures.
Message-ID: <1497@dg_rtp.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Mar-87 09:24:42 EST
Article-I.D.: dg_rtp.1497
Posted: Mon Mar 23 09:24:42 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Mar-87 03:54:14 EST
References: <2173@ncoast.UUCP> <340@slovax.UUCP>
Reply-To: meissner@dg_rtp.UUCP (Michael Meissner)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Data General (Languages @ Research Triangle Park, NC.)
Lines: 31

In article <340@slovax.UUCP> michael@slovax.UUCP (Michael Longe) writes:
(original example deleted, you've seen it before)
> ....  It compiled okay with the addition of another level of
> matching {}:
> 
> stuff[20][30] = {
>      {
>         {"joe", 1, 0, 12},
>         {"fred", 1, 0, 13},
>         {"carol",1, 0, 4} }
>      }
> 
> K&R p. 124 says, for a particular example, "... It would be more precise
> to enclose initilizers for each 'row' or structure in braces, ... but the
> inner braces are not necessary when the initializers are simple variables
> or character strings, and when all are present."
> 
> Apparently some compilers prefer the inner braces. It doesn't hurt to have
> them in either case.

The technical reason the compilers are spilt on this issue seems to be the
way the compilers are implemented.  Compilers implemented via top-down
recursive descent (ie, the original Ritchie PDP-11 C compiler, MANX, etc.)
will accept the minimal braces, wheras bottom up LALR based compilers (the
Johnson PCC compiler in particular) have difficulty with this.  The draft
ANSI standard says it is implementation defined what happens if you have
left some intermediate level of braces off.
-- 
	Michael Meissner, Data General	Uucp: ...mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!meissner

It is 11pm, do you know what your sendmail and uucico are doing?