Re: [RFC][PATCH] t-prio-queue: simplify using compound literals

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> >> We should still be hesitant against the practice to the same degree
> >> that we are hesitant against struct assignment, especially when the
> >> struct is of nontrivial size, or the struct has a pointer member
> >> whose memory ownership semantics goes against shallow copying of the
> >> struct.
> >
> > Good point. There are really two thresholds: is this something that
> > should be totally forbidden, and is this something that is generally a
> > good idea. I think the answers here are "no" and "yes" respectively.
> 
> I agree with your conclusion but I found the above a bit confusing.
> 
> Between "totally horrible, do not even think about it" (0%) and
> "that is of course an excellent idea" (100%), you want to have two
> points "might have some merit but not acceptable" (33%) and
> something else that is less than "of course an excellent idea" but
> still acceptable (66%)?  I would not phrase the last threshold "is
> generally a good idea", though.  "It is not generally a good idea,
> but in this case, it is an adequate solution", maybe.