Re: ecpg: issue related to preprocessor directives

Hi,

Thanks for the patch. I've spent quite some time reviewing it and the
changes look good to me. It looks very neat and is also
crystal-clear.

--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 8:05 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > Looking at pgc.l, it seems that 'elif' is treated as though it were
> > 'endif' followed by 'ifdef', which of course completely loses the
> > expected property that a previous successful branch would keep the
> > elif branch from being expanded.
> > While this doesn't look terribly hard to fix, I'm a little disturbed
> > by the fact that the existing semantics seem to date back to 1999
> > (b57b0e044). We're probably risking breaking existing app code if
> > we change it. I think we *should* change it, of course, but I'm kind
> > of inclined not to back-patch.
>
> Here's a proposed patch, which also clarifies the documentation,
> which seemed a bit confused/misleading to me.
>
> As stated, I'm not sure it's wise to back-patch this aggressively
> ... but maybe it'd be okay to squeeze it into v13?
>
> regards, tom lane
>