Re: iterator macros and requiring gcc >= 3.0 and -std=c9x

Marcus Brinkmann <[email protected]> writes:
>    driver_iterate
>      {
>        printf ("%s\n", driver->ops->name);
>      }
> 
> eliminating the need for a user-defined variable.  It's no big deal, but if
> you prefer the second version, we need to use -std=c9x in our CFLAGS.  What
> do you think?

Even if C99 lets you declare the variable in the for loop (eliminating
the need for a user-declaration), it still seems cleaner to pass the
name of the variable to be declared as a macro argument.

That way the name `driver' isn't magic.  It also lets the user nest your
construct (however silly that may be...).

-Miles
-- 
.Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.