Обсуждение: 'converts internal representation to "..."' comment is confusing
Hello hackers,
I found "..." confusing in some comments, so this patch changes it to "cstring". Which seems to be the intention after all.
I found "..." confusing in some comments, so this patch changes it to "cstring". Which seems to be the intention after all.
Best regards,
Steve
Вложения
Steve Chavez <steve@supabase.io> writes:
> I found "..." confusing in some comments, so this patch changes it to
> "cstring". Which seems to be the intention after all.
Those comments are Berkeley-era, making them probably a decade older
than the "cstring" pseudotype (invented in b663f3443). Perhaps what
you suggest is an improvement, but I'm not sure that appealing to
original intent can make the case.
regards, tom lane
Thanks a lot for the clarification!
The "..." looks enigmatic right now. I think cstring would save newcomers some head-scratching.
Open to suggestions though.
Best regards,
Steve
On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 22:36, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Steve Chavez <steve@supabase.io> writes:
> I found "..." confusing in some comments, so this patch changes it to
> "cstring". Which seems to be the intention after all.
Those comments are Berkeley-era, making them probably a decade older
than the "cstring" pseudotype (invented in b663f3443). Perhaps what
you suggest is an improvement, but I'm not sure that appealing to
original intent can make the case.
regards, tom lane
On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 9:37 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Steve Chavez <steve@supabase.io> writes: > > I found "..." confusing in some comments, so this patch changes it to > > "cstring". Which seems to be the intention after all. > > Those comments are Berkeley-era, making them probably a decade older > than the "cstring" pseudotype (invented in b663f3443). Perhaps what > you suggest is an improvement, but I'm not sure that appealing to > original intent can make the case. FWIW, it does seem like an improvement to me. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Hello hackers,
Tom, could we apply this patch since Robert agrees it's an improvement?
Best regards,
Steve
On Tue, 16 May 2023 at 07:49, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 9:37 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Steve Chavez <steve@supabase.io> writes:
> > I found "..." confusing in some comments, so this patch changes it to
> > "cstring". Which seems to be the intention after all.
>
> Those comments are Berkeley-era, making them probably a decade older
> than the "cstring" pseudotype (invented in b663f3443). Perhaps what
> you suggest is an improvement, but I'm not sure that appealing to
> original intent can make the case.
FWIW, it does seem like an improvement to me.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On 24/06/2023 23:52, Steve Chavez wrote: > On Tue, 16 May 2023 at 07:49, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com > <mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 9:37 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us > <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote: > > Steve Chavez <steve@supabase.io <mailto:steve@supabase.io>> writes: > > > I found "..." confusing in some comments, so this patch changes > it to > > > "cstring". Which seems to be the intention after all. > > > > Those comments are Berkeley-era, making them probably a decade older > > than the "cstring" pseudotype (invented in b663f3443). Perhaps what > > you suggest is an improvement, but I'm not sure that appealing to > > original intent can make the case. > > FWIW, it does seem like an improvement to me. > > Tom, could we apply this patch since Robert agrees it's an improvement? Looking around at other input/output functions, we're not very consistent, there are many variants of "converts string to [datatype]", "converts C string to [datatype]", and "input routine for [datatype]". They are all fine, even though they're inconsistent. Doesn't seem worth the code churn to change them. Anyway, I agree this patch is an improvement, so applied. Thanks! -- Heikki Linnakangas Neon (https://neon.tech)