Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2020-07-04 16:16, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm for a typedef. There is *nothing* readable about "(void (*) (void))",
>> and the fact that it's theoretically incorrect for the purpose doesn't
>> exactly aid intelligibility either. With a typedef, not only are
>> the uses more readable but there's a place to put a comment explaining
>> that this is notionally wrong but it's what gcc specifies to use
>> to suppress thus-and-such warnings.
> Makes sense. New patch here.
I don't have a compiler handy that emits these warnings, but this
passes an eyeball check.
>>> But if we prefer a typedef then I'd propose
>>> GenericFuncPtr like in the initial patch.
>> That name is OK by me.
> I changed that to pg_funcptr_t, to look a bit more like C and less like
> Java. ;-)
I liked the first proposal better. Not gonna fight about it though.
regards, tom lane
