Re: boolin comment not moved when code was refactored

On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 2:55 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 10:35 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I happened upon a function comment referring to non-existent code
> >> (that code was moved to another location many years ago).
> >>
> >> Probably better to move that comment too. Thoughts?
>
> > Agreed. +1 to move that comment.
>
> Hm, I'm inclined to think that the comment lines just above:
>
>  *        boolin            - converts "t" or "f" to 1 or 0
>  *
>  * Check explicitly for "true/false" and TRUE/FALSE, 1/0, YES/NO, ON/OFF.
>  * Reject other values.
>
> are also well past their sell-by date.  The one-line summary
> "converts "t" or "f" to 1 or 0" is not remotely accurate anymore.
> Perhaps we should just drop it?  Or else reword to something
> vaguer, like "input function for boolean".  The "Check explicitly"
> para no longer describes logic in this function.  We could move
> it to parse_bool_with_len, but that seems to have a suitable
> comment already.
>

Yes, I had the same thought about the rest of the comment being
outdated but just wanted to test the water to see if a small change
was accepted before I did too much.

> In short, maybe the whole comment should just be
>
> /*
>  *      boolin - input function for type boolean
>  */
>

How about "boolin - converts a boolean string value to 1 or 0"

======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia.