Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have had a quick look at it. The perl is more than ugly - it's
> unmaintainable IMNSHO. It violates perl best practice in many ways, and
> reflects the age of the a2p utility quite badly.
> There is no guarantee that the script won't have to be looked at.
> Rather, the reverse is our experience, so this is a real consideration.
> I agree that a perl version is much more desirable, but it really
> requires a hand translation from awk rather than a hacked a2p output.
IMHO awk was the wrong language to begin with, so I'd vote for a fresh
implementation with re-thought data structures rather than just cleaning
up around the edges. However, I would like any reimplementation to
happen after we get this in, not before. As long as we are agreed that
a perl script is the appropriate tool, someone can go off in a corner
and reimplement without holding up anything else. And it's surely past
time that Michael stops having to sync ecpg with the main grammar by
hand.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
