On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > If we were thinking of moving in that direction, I would argue that > we should get rid of typedef'd pointers altogether, ie, change > "Relation" to be a typedef for the struct and write "Relation *rel" > not "Relation rel".
Hm. I have to say the single most confusing thing about the Postgres source that took me a *long* time to get over was remembering that some of the typedefs were already pointers and some weren't. It seems silly now but when I was trying to understand what the intent of a function was and it wasn't obvious that some of the arguments appeared to be pass by value but were actually pass by reference it made things really surprising. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
