| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Order getopt arguments |
| Date: | 2022-12-05 16:51:07 |
| Message-ID: | 3309091.1670259067@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I was only talking about the actual argument to getopt(), not the
> order of the code stanzas. I'm not sure what we ought to do about the
> latter.
100% agreed that the getopt argument should just be alphabetical.
But the bulk of Peter's patch is rearranging switch cases to agree
with that, and if you want to do that then you have to also think
about long options, which are not in the getopt argument. I'm
not entirely convinced that reordering the switch cases is worth
troubling over.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2022-12-05 16:53:17 | Re: Error-safe user functions |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2022-12-05 16:36:19 | Re: Error-safe user functions |