Re: Run pgindent now?
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Run pgindent now? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 55650EF4.9040300@gmx.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Run pgindent now? (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: Run pgindent now?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/25/15 7:15 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-05-25 19:01:28 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> A longer-term fix would be to make pgindent less stupid about this sort >>> of usage, but nobody's yet volunteered to dig into the guts of that code. >> >> I assume a typedefs list is going to be a requirement of any decent C >> indenting tool. > > Maybe I'm missing something major here, but why? Afaict it's just only > used for formatting decisions that could be made without it just as well? AFAICT, the main reason is to decide whether * and & are binary infix or unary prefix operators. Otherwise, it wouldn't know whether to write char * foo; or the more customary char *foo; Now, running pgindent without a typedefs list also makes it do things like static int32 -makepol(QPRS_STATE *state) +makepol(QPRS_STATE * state) which, one might argue, it could figure out without a typedefs list. But then the formatting would be inconsistent between prototypes and variable declarations, which might drive people crazy. I don't know whether there is a better way than living with it, one way or the other (i.e., requiring a types list, or accepting slightly odd formatting).
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: