From: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Propose a new function - list_is_empty |
Date: | 2022-08-16 05:29:29 |
Message-ID: | CAHut+PsQC3-Y=mdo4A-ja9zjzeN0VhS2Vpfoei9JtySGOBkQ9g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 11:27 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > During a recent code review I was going to suggest that some new code
> > would be more readable if the following:
> > if (list_length(alist) == 0) ...
>
> > was replaced with:
> > if (list_is_empty(alist)) ...
>
> > but then I found that actually no such function exists.
>
> That's because the *correct* way to write it is either "alist == NIL"
> or just "!alist". I don't think we need yet another way to spell
> that, and I'm entirely not on board with replacing either of those
> idioms. But if you want to get rid of overcomplicated uses of
> list_length() in favor of one of those spellings, have at it.
Done, and tested OK with make check-world.
PSA.
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v2-0001-use-NIL-test-for-empty-List-checks.patch | application/octet-stream | 18.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-08-16 05:31:15 | Re: Logical WAL sender unresponsive during decoding commit |
Previous Message | Shinoda, Noriyoshi (PN Japan FSIP) | 2022-08-16 05:27:36 | [PG15 Doc] remove "tty" connect string from manual |