fix: introduce init functions to avoid warnings.

[lemire]

It is difficult to portably initialize structs to zero without a function. It turns out that either C or C++ emits a warning.

[madscientist]

It's interesting, I don't think you'll get warnings if you compile your C code (like art.c) with a C compiler not a C++ compiler. The structure = {0} is legal C code since C99. Is there a reason to want to use a C++ compiler to compile art.c etc.? The initializations are not in header files so they aren't visible to both compilers AFAICT.

[lemire]

Is there a reason to want to use a C++ compiler

We explicitly support C++ compilation as a you can see by looking at the code: (see screenshot)

We have been supporting both C and C++ compilation of the source code for quite some time now.

The issue here is to get fewer warnings at compile time.

[lemire]

The initializations are not in header files so they aren't visible to both compilers AFAICT.

When compiling with C++, you compile to a namespace. So you have to take your pick: C or C++. But if you pick C++, you must build everything in C++.

[SLieve]

Nit/style: I suggest moving this to line 123 or somewhere around there, so all typedefs are at the top before utility functions.

[SLieve]

Nit/style: Same here, suggest moving it below the typedefs

[madscientist]

OK. If it were me I'd probably forgo the extra function and just make use of the preprocessor instead:

#if __cplusplus
# define CROARING_INIT {}
#else
# define CROARING_INIT {0}
#endif
   ...
    art_iterator_t iterator = CROARING_INIT;

but this works as well.

[lemire]

@madscientist We can try that.

[lemire]

See #634

[lemire]

Closing.