On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Tom Lane escribió:
>>> Um, sorry, no reason to do which?
>
>> No reason not to leave prototypes alone in the AWK code. Isn't the
>> style emitted by indent good enough already? The comment that ctags
>> needs it is prob
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane escribió:
>> Um, sorry, no reason to do which?
> No reason not to leave prototypes alone in the AWK code. Isn't the
> style emitted by indent good enough already? The comment that ctags
> needs it is probably outdated (I know my ctags, the Exuberant one,
> does
Tom Lane escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > The reason this is like this is that the indent binary modifies the
> > prototype exactly like the function definition, and then the awk program
> > that's used in the pipeline "pulls up" the second line:
>
> > # Move prototype names to the same li
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> The reason this is like this is that the indent binary modifies the
> prototype exactly like the function definition, and then the awk program
> that's used in the pipeline "pulls up" the second line:
> # Move prototype names to the same line as return type. Useful for
Tom Lane escribió:
> Ah. That's a bit idiosyncratic to pgindent. What it does for a
> function definition makes sense, I think: it lines up all the
> parameters to start in the same column:
>
> static int
> myfunction(int foo,
>int bar)
>
> What is not obvious is that the same amou
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If that's not it, you'd need to mention details.
> Well, one thing I've noticed is that when a function prototype wraps
> around to the next line, you often change the number of spaces in the
> hanging indent.
Ah. That's
Robert Haas writes:
> What is a bit frustrating to me is that a number of Tom's changes to
> the first two patches were trivial whitespace changes that required me
> to rebase for no obvious reason. Either those changes were made
> accidentally as Tom was fooling around with what I had done, or
Greg Stark writes:
> What would happen if we ran pgindent immediately after every commit?
> So nobody would ever see a checkout that wasn't pgindent-clean?
> The only losers I see would be people working on multi-part patches.
... which we're trying to encourage ...
Actually, the case that star
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Only if they aren't applied by then. One reason that we normally only
>> run pgindent at the end of the devel cycle is that that's when
>> (presumably) the smallest amount of patches remain outstanding.
> OK, I get it. Th
