Re: pgindent (was Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Preventive maintenance in advance of pgindent run.)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgindent (was Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Preventive maintenance in advance of pgindent run.) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 31422.1497388681@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgindent (was Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Preventivemaintenance in advance of pgindent run.) (Piotr Stefaniak <postgres@piotr-stefaniak.me>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgindent (was Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Preventive maintenance in advance of pgindent run.)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Piotr Stefaniak <postgres@piotr-stefaniak.me> writes: > On 2017-06-13 22:23, Tom Lane wrote: >> I could not find any places where reverting this change made the >> results worse, so I'm unclear on why you made it. > I must admit I'm a bit confused about why it's not fixed yet, but I'll > have to analyze that later this week. But the idea was to convince > indent that the following is not a declaration and therefore it > shouldn't be formatted as such: > typedef void (*voidptr) (int *); Hm. But that's just a function pointer typedef, and we like the formatting we're getting for those from this new version --- with or without that change. What do you think needs to be done differently? I note btw that this is not the first time we've discussed that particular bit of code in this thread. I proposed a couple of different possible changes to it before ... regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: