From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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 17:04:38 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZSWktZ84J97gGhWt4DCi6n_AXZg82p+DDF0aAUnjWYgg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 11:51 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.
I'm not particularly sold on that either, but neither am I
particularly opposed to it.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-12-05 17:09:57 | Re: Error-safe user functions |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2022-12-05 16:53:17 | Re: Error-safe user functions |