Re: pgindent vs. pgperltidy command-line arguments

On 20.06.23 17:38, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> +1, although I wonder if we shouldn't follow pgindent's new lead
>>> and require some argument(s).
>>
>> That makes sense to me.  Here is a small update with this behavior
>> change and associated documentation update.
>
> I'm intending to add some of the new pgindent features to pgperltidy.
> Preparatory to that here's a rewrite of pgperltidy in perl - no new
> features yet but it does remove the hardcoded path, and requires you to
> pass in one or more files / directories as arguments.

Are you planning to touch pgperlcritic and pgperlsyncheck as well? If
not, part of my patch would still be useful. Maybe I should commit my
posted patch for PG16, to keep consistency with pgindent, and then your
work would presumably be considered for PG17.