Re: pgindent

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >> 27 hours later, done. ? I ran all the tests outlined in the pgindent
> >> README.
> >>
> >
> > What's with things like:
> >
> > -void _PG_init(void);
> > +void ? ? ? _PG_init(void);
> >
> > - ? Datum diff = DirectFunctionCall2(date_mi,
> > + ? Datum ? ? ? diff = DirectFunctionCall2(date_mi,
> >
> > ? ?const TimeADT *aa = (const TimeADT *) a;
> > ? ?const TimeADT *bb = (const TimeADT *) b;
> > - ? Interval ? ? ?*i;
> > + ? Interval ? *i;
> >
> >
> > Note that in the last one someone carefully made the variable names
> > line up and pgindent is changing the spacing to an arbitrary amount.
>
> Well, it's the same arbitrary amount that we use throughout our code,
> presumably. I am not sure whether pgident is the best tool for the
> job, but at least it makes the code relatively consistent throughout,
> which is mostly a good thing.

Yes, there are going to be negative aspects of pgindent --- the big
question is whether it is a net gain or loss.

I have always felt it is radical that we do this --- good, but radical.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +