IRC channel logs

<nalaginrut>morning guilers~

<civodul>Hello Guilers!

<wingo>meep meep

*wingo back in the europe

*wleslie walks back in with an anvil embedded in his face

<wingo>walk into the club like ...

<civodul>welcome back, wingo

<lloda>ot, is 'struct { double a; double b; } x[10];' standard C?

<wingo>lloda: i think so

<lloda>thanks. i don't have a good feeling for how constructive C syntax is or isn't

<madsy_>lloda: It is. It defines variable x immediately

<lloda>thanks madsy_, i'd normally do struct X { ... }; X x[10], but it was a one-off and I wondered.

<madsy_>lloda: However, when you do it that way, the struct type is in the struct namespace.

<madsy_>So any new instances of type X must be defined as "struct X foo = { .. };"

<madsy_>Instead of just "X foo = { .. };"

<madsy_>I guess you could call it the namespace for tags, since the same namespace is used for structs, enums and unions.

<lloda>it was C++ so X foo = { .. }; would have worked, but I didn't actually know that about C

<madsy_>lloda: Ok, but you asked if it was C, not C++, so :-)

<lloda>right, my bad

<dje42>I was looking into the libgc 7.4.0 bug and noticed guile's workaround test a macro I couldn't find in libgc sources.

<dje42>gc.c tests GC_ALPHA_VERSION but libgc calls it GC_VERSION_MICRO IIUC.

<dje42>undefined macros are equal to zero so the current test will match any 7.4.x. IIUC ofcourse :-)

2014-06-05.log