Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of jue dic 15 12:00:13 -0300 2011:
>> How to people feel about naming the files (as proposed)
>>
>> ! OBJS = plpython.o plpython_io.o plpython_procedure.o plpython_exec.o \
>> ! plpython_plpy.o plpython_spi.o plpython_result.o plpython_cursor.o \
>> ! plpython_plan.o plpython_subtransaction.o plpython_functions.o \
>> ! plpython_elog.o
>>
>> vs. say
>>
>> ! OBJS = main.o io.o procedure.o exec.o plpy.o spi.o result.o cursor.o \
>> ! plan.o subtransaction.o functions.o elog.o
>>
>> ?
> I find the extra prefix unnecessary and ugly; if we had to had a
> prefix, I'd choose a shorter one (maybe "py" instead of "plpython_").
+1 for a prefix, mainly because the shorter names duplicate some
names already in use elsewhere in our tree. But I agree with Alvaro
that "py" would be sufficient.
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
