Re: TRUE/FALSE vs true/false

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:34:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 09:00:11PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> On tor, 2011-08-04 at 14:44 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> >>> I meant a mass "sed -e 's/TRUE/true/g' -e 's/FALSE/false/g'" run
> >>> so all the ~200 occurrences of both "TRUE" and "FALSE" get
> >>> converted so the whole source tree is consistent.
>
> >> I would be in favor of that.
>
> > I have implemented this with the patch at:
> > http://momjian.us/expire/true_diff.txt
>
> Does this really do anything for us that will justify the extra
> back-patching pain it will cause? I don't see that it's improving
> code readability any.

I think it is more of a consistency issue. There were multiple people
who wanted this change. Of course, some of those people don't backport
stuff.

Other comments?

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

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