Re: Why not C99 designated initializer syntax?

[Daniel Colascione]

On Mon, Dec 12 2016, Philipp Stephani wrote:
> Daniel Colascione <address@hidden> schrieb am Mo., 12. Dez. 2016 um 22:56 Uhr:
>
>  Why are we writing code like this?
>
>  struct font_driver const nsfont_driver =
>    {
>    type: LISPSYM_INITIALLY (Qns),
>    case_sensitive: true,
>    ...
>    };
>
>  and not like this?
>
>  struct font_driver const nsfont_driver =
>    {
>    .type = LISPSYM_INITIALLY (Qns),
>    .case_sensitive = true,
>    ...
>    };
>
>  The former is a deprecated GCC extension.  The latter is the standard.
>  We need C99 these days anyway.
>
> Probably just an accident. There doesn't seem to be a ban on C99 designated 
> initializers; for example, I've added
> some to emacs-module.c

An accident is possible.  It's just curious that this syntax has
appeared in brand-new code.