Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pacbell!att-ih!cuuxb!ltuxa!ll1a!spl1!laidbak!daveb
From: daveb@laidbak.UUCP (Dave Burton)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: { initializer-list , }
Message-ID: <1378@laidbak.UUCP>
Date: 14 Mar 88 21:04:25 GMT
References: <660@kuling.UUCP>
Reply-To: daveb@laidbak.UUCP (Dave Burton)
Organization: is pretty bad/My method of
Lines: 29

In article <660@kuling.UUCP> bjornc@kuling.UUCP (Bj|rn Carlsson) writes:
>Why is an optional trailing comma inside the braces after an initializer-list
>allowed? Since it doesn't affect the meaning of the initializer we can't
>see any other reasons for including it except historical. Is it included
>in the Draft proposed ANSI C? We are currently writing a compiler for a
>subset of C and got a bit confused when finding this strange syntax.
>It is documented in both K&R and Harbison&Steele (2nd ed.).

I (ab)use this syntax all the time when writing programs with a
large number of initializers. It is very useful when this list
must undergo maintenance - additions, deletions, reorganization, etc.
For example:

static char *message[] = {
	"message",
	"another message",
	"yam",
	"...",
	"etc",
};

If more messages need to be added, just tack 'em on.

It also has the potential to make automatic program generators
(a trivial amount) easier to implement.
-- 
--------------------"Well, it looked good when I wrote it"---------------------
 Verbal: Dave Burton                        Net: ...!ihnp4!laidbak!daveb
 V-MAIL: (312) 505-9100 x325            USSnail: 1901 N. Naper Blvd.
#include <disclaimer.h>                          Naperville, IL  60540