On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 01:19:30PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> When I wrote the code I admit that I was probably wearing my
> object-orientated programming hat. I had in mind that the whole
> function series would have made a good class. Passing the
> CopyMultiInsertInfo was sort of the non-OOP equivalent to having
> this/Me/self available, as it would be for any instance method of a
> class. Back to reality, this isn't OOP, so I was wearing the wrong
> hat. I think the unused parameter should likely be removed. It's
> probably not doing a great deal of harm since the function is static
> inline and the compiler should be producing any code for the unused
> param, but for the sake of preventing confusion, it should be removed.
> Ashutosh had to ask about it, so it wasn't immediately clear what the
> purpose of it was. Since there's none, be gone with it, I say.
Sounds fair to me. This has been introduced by 86b8504, so let's see
what's Andres take.
--
Michael