Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!ukc!its63b!xsimon
From: xsimon@its63b.ed.ac.uk (Simon Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Structure constants
Message-ID: <667@its63b.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 3-Oct-87 15:33:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: its63b.667
Posted: Sat Oct  3 15:33:29 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 7-Oct-87 06:22:21 EDT
References: <843@usfvax2.UUCP>
Reply-To: simon@its63b.ed.ac.uk (Simon Brown)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Edinburgh University
Lines: 39

In article <843@usfvax2.UUCP> chips@usfvax2.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>I suggested that X3J11 include structure constants in the draft standard:
>
>	typedef struct { double r, i; } COMPLEX;
>	extern COMPLEX get_complex(), add_complex();
>	main()
>	{
>		COMPLEX a, b;
>		a = get_complex_from_somewhere();
>		b = add_complex(a, (COMPLEX){1.0, 1.0} );
>	}

Why leave it just at structure constants? Expanding it to arrays would be
*much* more useful.
For example,
	(int []){ 1, 4, 6, 78, -67 }
	((FILE *)[]){ stdin, stdout }
	...
would all be sensible constant expressions.
And of course, the character-string notation "string of chars" would just be
shorthand for
	(char [])
	   { 's','t','r','i','n','g',' ','o','f',' ','c','h','a','r','s','\0' }

You can't beat good honest anonymous data!


    %{ 
       Simon.
    %}

-- 
----------------------------------
| Simon Brown                    | UUCP:  seismo!mcvax!ukc!{lfcs,its63b}!simon
| Department of Computer Science | JANET: simon@uk.ac.ed.{lfcs,its63b}
| University of Edinburgh,       | ARPA:  simon%lfcs.ed.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
| Scotland, UK.                  |     or simon%its63b.ed.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
----------------------------------     or simon%cstvax.ed.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
                      "Life's like that, you know"