Re: [PATCH] CodingGuidelines: allow compound literals

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:

> From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
>
> Our coding guidelines say that we'll allow compound literals from
> mid 2026 if no problems are reported in relation to the test balloon
> added in 01e49941d6 (reftable/system: provide thin wrapper for tempfile
> subsystem, 2024-11-18). As no such reports have been received, update
> the guidelines to allow this construct.
>
> Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
> ---

Yeah, I agree that it is about time to promote this to the accepted
set.

So we do not have test balloon but we know we still cannot use two
constructs from C99 due to MinGW and older IBM xlc?  Perhaps we can
raise test balloons for them by now?

Will merge and mark the topic as ready for 'next'.  Thanks.

> diff --git a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
> index c06f5d3071..23a4d2186a 100644
> --- a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
> +++ b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
> @@ -311,13 +311,8 @@ For C programs:
>     . since late 2023 with 8277dbe987 we have been using the bool type
>       from <stdbool.h>.
>  
> -   C99 features we have test balloons for:
> -
> -   . since late 2024 with v2.48.0-rc0~20, we have test balloons for
> -     compound literal syntax, e.g., (struct foo){ .member = value };
> -     our hope is that no platforms we care about have trouble using
> -     them, and officially adopt its wider use in mid 2026.  Do not add
> -     more use of the syntax until that happens.
> +   . since late 2024 with v2.48.0-rc0~20, we have been using compound
> +     literals, e.g., (struct foo){ .member = value };
>  
>     New C99 features that we cannot use yet: