The correct way to write this is to not use /1/ in the size of namestr, it's to use a simple []. This tells subsequent programmers that you are using variable length structures. In older compilers, the metaphor was to use '0', but C99 (maybe even earlier) got everyone using [].
Here's a nice discussion in StackOverflow, including a bunch of C++ guys saying to just use Vectors, which ignores the entire point of getting a structure with only one memory allocation:
From GCC: ISO C90 does not support flexible array members.
and:
ISO C forbids zero-size array 'namestr'
Therefore I contest that your way is the "correct" way, especially since most C code is not C99 code. Also I'd probably never use this in C++. If you want to let subsequent programmers know you're using the variable length structure, add the comment: /* unwarranted chumminess with the compiler */
Comments
The correct way to write this is to not use /1/ in the size of namestr, it's to use a simple []. This tells subsequent programmers that you are using variable length structures. In older compilers, the metaphor was to use '0', but C99 (maybe even earlier) got everyone using [].
Here's a nice discussion in StackOverflow, including a bunch of C++ guys saying to just use Vectors, which ignores the entire point of getting a structure with only one memory allocation:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/688471/variable-sized-str...
From GCC: ISO C90 does not support flexible array members. and: ISO C forbids zero-size array 'namestr'
Therefore I contest that your way is the "correct" way, especially since most C code is not C99 code. Also I'd probably never use this in C++. If you want to let subsequent programmers know you're using the variable length structure, add the comment: /* unwarranted chumminess with the compiler */