From: | Piotr Stefaniak <postgres(at)piotr-stefaniak(dot)me> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Subject: | Re: Emacs vs pg_indent's weird indentation for function declarations |
Date: | 2019-05-19 17:25:05 |
Message-ID: | DB8PR03MB59315C886E551B2D4483099FF2050@DB8PR03MB5931.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17/05/2019 16.48, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>>>> A small problem with the "rejiggering" is that it now makes the wrong
>>>> choice for K&R-style function definitions, causing them to be weirdly
>>>> indented. For our purposes, that's a non-problem so I'm not excited
>>>> about trying to make it smart enough to recognize those. We do have
>>>> a couple of amazingly old and crufty K&R-style functions in src/port/,
>>>> though, so probably we'd wish to fix those.
> It doesn't really seem practical to me to make the lookahead function
> smart enough to tell the difference between attributes and K&R-style
> parameter declarations. What I'm thinking of doing to have an
> upstreamable patch is to invent a new switch, perhaps '-kr'/'-nkr',
> to indicate whether the user is more worried about K&R function
> declarations than she is about function attributes.
I think it's safe to assume that upstream can drop support for K&R-style
parameters altogether.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-05-19 17:27:21 | Re: Emacs vs pg_indent's weird indentation for function declarations |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2019-05-19 16:20:29 | Re: Table as argument in postgres function |