Re: Synchronize with imath upstream

Hi,

On 2019-02-06 10:15:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On February 6, 2019 5:17:50 AM GMT+05:30, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >> I'm -1 for this myself.  I think there are a few places that could
> >> benefit from it, but my fear is that many *more* places would get
> >> worse.
> 
> > Because of imported code like ryu and imath? And because it can make code considerably better when used
judiciously.
> 
> I don't object to keeping imported code in a form that matches upstream
> as best we can.  (Should we also exclude such files from pgindent'ing?)

I think pgindenting doesn't matter as much, as that's an automated
change. But as pgindent doesn't fix the position of declarations, that's
a significant manual process.


> But changing conventions for our own code is an entirely different matter.
> In this case, I think that having some places use it while the bulk of
> the code doesn't is just a bad idea from a stylistic-consistency
> standpoint.  It's pretty much the same reason why we still aren't allowing
> // comments --- there's no toolchain-based reason not to, but a mishmash of
> comment styles would be ugly and hard to read.

Consistency surely has value, but it shouldn't block making use of new
things that become available.  I don't feel extremely strongly about
allowing declarations after statements in C (while it's obviously
crucial for C++), but I do think it can be a noticably easier to reason
about the values of variables if they're declared closer to use, and
it's easier to make sure that a variable hasn't been used elsewhere that
way.

Greetings,

Andres Freund