On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 2:55 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Richard Guo <guofengli...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 10:35 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I happened upon a function comment referring to non-existent code > >> (that code was moved to another location many years ago). > >> > >> Probably better to move that comment too. Thoughts? > > > Agreed. +1 to move that comment. > > Hm, I'm inclined to think that the comment lines just above: > > * boolin - converts "t" or "f" to 1 or 0 > * > * Check explicitly for "true/false" and TRUE/FALSE, 1/0, YES/NO, ON/OFF. > * Reject other values. > > are also well past their sell-by date. The one-line summary > "converts "t" or "f" to 1 or 0" is not remotely accurate anymore. > Perhaps we should just drop it? Or else reword to something > vaguer, like "input function for boolean". The "Check explicitly" > para no longer describes logic in this function. We could move > it to parse_bool_with_len, but that seems to have a suitable > comment already. >
Yes, I had the same thought about the rest of the comment being outdated but just wanted to test the water to see if a small change was accepted before I did too much. > In short, maybe the whole comment should just be > > /* > * boolin - input function for type boolean > */ > How about "boolin - converts a boolean string value to 1 or 0" ====== Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia.
