From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: assorted code cleanup |
Date: | 2017-09-05 19:32:27 |
Message-ID: | 11524.1504639947@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Do you mean specifically the hook variables, or any function pointers?
> I can see your point in the above case, but for example here
> - if ((*tinfo->f_lt) (o.upper, c.upper, flinfo))
> + if (tinfo->f_lt(o.upper, c.upper, flinfo))
> I think there is no loss of clarity and the extra punctuation makes it
> more complicated to read.
At one time there were C compilers that only accepted the former syntax.
But we have already occurrences of the latter in our tree, and no one
has complained, so I think that's a dead issue by now.
I do agree with the idea that we should use the * notation in cases where
the reader might otherwise think that a plain function was being invoked,
ie I don't like
some_function_pointer(args);
Even if the compiler isn't confused, readers might be. But in the case of
structname->pointerfield(args);
it's impossible to read that as a plain function call, so I'm okay with
dropping the extra punctuation there.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2017-09-05 19:47:41 | Re: Fix performance of generic atomics |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-09-05 19:12:41 | Re: assorted code cleanup |