Re: Order getopt arguments
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Order getopt arguments |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZSWktZ84J97gGhWt4DCi6n_AXZg82p+DDF0aAUnjWYgg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Order getopt arguments (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Order getopt arguments
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 11:51 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > > I was only talking about the actual argument to getopt(), not the > > order of the code stanzas. I'm not sure what we ought to do about the > > latter. > > 100% agreed that the getopt argument should just be alphabetical. > But the bulk of Peter's patch is rearranging switch cases to agree > with that, and if you want to do that then you have to also think > about long options, which are not in the getopt argument. I'm > not entirely convinced that reordering the switch cases is worth > troubling over. I'm not particularly sold on that either, but neither am I particularly opposed to it. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: