Re: APR 1.0 released

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> > I don't understand most of this patch. What difference does changing the
> > preprocessor test order make?
> 
> I think Bruce was mostly trying to make all the similar tests look
> alike.  Also I agree that "if a && !b" is clearer than "if !b && a";
> the latter requires a bit more thought to parse the extent of the !
> operator...

Right, just consistency.

> However, per Michael's report there's some oversight in this patch.
> I'm not presently ready to update to CVS tip; who can find the problem?

I have not seen the report yet.  I had no plan to change the behavior
except for Cygwin.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073