Alex Pilosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So you have four (soon to be six or seven) different structs that *must*
>> have the same fields? I don't think that's cleaner than a union ...
> Please see my diffs. Its implemented via #define to declare all common
> fields.
> #define RTE_COMMON_FIELDS \
> NodeTag type; \
> [etc]
I don't think that technique is cleaner than a union, either ;-).
The macro definition is a pain in the neck: you have to play games with
semicolon placement, most tools won't autoindent it nicely, etc etc.
But the main point is that I think NodeType = RangeTblEntry with
a separate subtype field is a better way to go than making a bunch of
different NodeType values. When most of the fields are common, as in
this case, it's going to be true that many places only want to know
"is it a rangetable entry or not?"
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
