Remove dead code which was pending investigation

This commit removes an #if0'd block of code I had temporarily retained
until I could investigate further.  The removed code was inserting
"(TYPE)" before the remainder of the output, which techncially made
the output a compound-literal rather than an initilizer-list.

Keep in mind that as implicit initializers, the output from this
function is appearing as an element within the scope of an
initializer-list.  The code was removed initially because I found that
the Portland Group compilers in C99 mode would reject the use of
compound-literals within an initializer-list, but was willing to
accept the new alternative.  Meanwhile gcc-pendantic, icc, suncc, xlc,
opencc and pathcc were (in their C99 modes) all willing to accept both
variants.

My investigation consisted of a carefull reading of sections 6.5.2.5
(Compound Literals) and 6.7.8 (Initialization) of the ISO C99
specification, along with Appendix A (Language syntax summary). I
actually read the widely available "N1256" committee draft).  There
were two "findings":

1) I determined that the current form of the code (generating an
initializer-list) is valid ISO C99.  In fact it is fully consistent
with all of the examples in section 6.7.8, none of which include a
compound-literal.

2) The second finding is that the previous output involving a
compound-literal is ALSO valid ISO C99.  Specifically if you
start in Appendix A at initializer-list and work your way upwards you
will find that any postfix-expression is a valid (singelton)
initializer-list.  One explicitly valid postfix-expression is:
   ( type-name ) { initializer-list }
So, the Portland Group compiler *is* buggy.

On balance I prefer that upc2c generate the most portable code
possbile.  While I dislike making excessive allowances for other
people's bugs, this is a case of choosing between two equally valid
outputs.  So, I would favor the new output (very slightly) based on
the fact that it is acceptible by more compilers.  What tipped the
scale for me is the fact that the new output is valid ANSI C89.  Thus
it should be more widely accepted even by compilers I did not have the
opportunity to test.