Re: nextval parameter is not clear

On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 5:33 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
wrote:

> On Thu, 2022-11-24 at 02:41 -0500, Kirk Wolak wrote:
> > Alright, as I have the documentation build working, and a slightly
> better stylesheet,
> > the comments on the last block were not aligned.
> > They are fixed now.
> >
> > Apologies for spamming this in... My first patch turned into 3
> emails...
>
> That is no problem.
>
> I think the patch is fine. I like the addition of the "--" comments.
> The one think that should be unified is that you include an explicit
> cast to "regclass" everywhere, but the pre-existing example does not.
>
> I would omit that cast. It might confuse beginners (who are probably
> satisfied to know that you have to use the sequence name as a string),
> and it is explained in the last paragraph of the page anyway.
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
>

Laurenz,
First, thanks for the support..

It's funny you mention that (with and without ::regclass). I went both
ways on it.
The reason I did not address it, was that I liked the variety because it
sticks out.
I thought about adding a comment like
-- while you can omit the ::regclass casting, it is preferred

The fact that it is different engages the brain of the reader whose
pattern matching
just got challenged. It almost begs them to test it out.

I think it might deserve a comment, but I would really prefer to keep it
in there.

Regards Kirk