Re: function defined (or not), more worries on version 10->14 upgrade

"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 2:20 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> While I've not yet looked at the code, I've got no reason to think
>> this is anything except fragile argument parsing in \df and \sf.

> I'm unsure about the "extra argument ignored" bit but the rest of "not
> found" issues are due to operator error; specifying a pattern that tries to
> match the name and arguments at the same time when that isn't how the
> meta-command is defined to be used.

Ah, right, and indeed the code is just parsing off space-separated
arguments one at a time. It's unfortunate that this is done so
much differently from \sf.

One could imagine, perhaps, checking for parentheses in the arguments
and parsing differently depending on whether they're there. But that's
getting into the realm of a new definition rather than a bug fix.

regards, tom lane