> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I am thinking of going through the code and removing NOT_USED functions
> > I know to be useless. OK?
>
> Don't see why not, though I'd recommend treading lightly. That unused-
> functions script tends to pull out stuff that has been exported in the
> expectation that someone would want it someday, but for one reason or
> another it's not being called right at the moment. We don't really want
> to delete that sort of code.
>
> BTW, I've also been rather dubious about the automatic
> demote-to-static-function script for the same reason --- when someone
> comes along and needs function X, it's hard to tell whether X was
> intended to be private or was intended to be public but got demoted by
> the script. It's tough to maintain clear module APIs with tools like
> that second-guessing the author's intentions.
Well, I put a comment on one's that have to be exported, and others come
up as referenced in the regression tests.
The only one I know about is:
GetAttributeByNameGetAttributeByNum
and some debug functions. The above two are the only ones that I marked
as static at one time that I later had to export.
The other advantage of static is that if a static function is not called
in the file, the compiler throws a warning and I can then mark it as
NOT_USED.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026