AW: [HACKERS] NEXTSTEP porting problems

From: Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at>
To: hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, "'t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp'" <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Subject: AW: [HACKERS] NEXTSTEP porting problems
Date: 1999-02-10 10:07:26
Message-ID: 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C60267B2F3@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> What about using #if 0 or #if PG_FALSE or whatever instead of #if
> FALSE?

I think the consensus was to use:

#ifdef NOT_USED

in these cases

Andreas

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Postgres DBA 1999-02-10 13:31:01 Re: [GENERAL] A mistake generates strange result
Previous Message Jan Wieck 1999-02-10 09:26:34 Re: [HACKERS] TIME QUALIFICATION