Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: November 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: client option change callback (PR#1935)
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: client option change callback (PR#1935)

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: "Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: client option change callback (PR#1935)
From: Mike Kaufman <kaufman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 09:51:25 -0600

On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 03:08:28PM +0000, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Jason Short wrote:
> > I've also changed the struct initializers to the "new" (C99?) format,
> > which is far more readible IMO. Feel free to change the indentation as
> > you like...
> 
> I want a decision on this. Is this C99 behaviour portable and acceptable
> style?

so we would be wasting suppport for non-c99 compliant compilers based on
this one change? I don't think so. I would consider it if there were a more
pressing matter, but...

better to add comments instead:

+#define GEN_INT_OPTION(oname, desc) \
+  { #oname,  /* name */             \
+    desc,    /* description */      \
+    COT_INT, /* type */             \
...

-mike

> ie
> 
> +#define GEN_INT_OPTION(oname, desc) \
> +  { name: #oname,                   \
> +    description: desc,              \
> +    type: COT_INT,                  \
> +    p_int_value: &oname,            \
> +    p_bool_value: NULL,             \
> +    p_string_value: NULL,           \
> +    string_length: 0,               \
> +    change_callback: NULL,          \
> +    p_string_vals: NULL,            \
> +    p_gui_data: NULL                \
> +  }


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]