Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> 2016-09-23 7:22 GMT+02:00 Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lathia@gmail.com>:
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> If it's unreadable in \df+, how would \df++ make that any better?
>> Eventhough source code as part of \df+ is bit annoying (specifically
>> for PL functions), I noticed the argument in this thread that it's
>> useful information for some of. So \df++ is just alternate option for
>> the those who want the source code.
> ++ is little bit obscure. So better to remove src everywhere.
Well, that was suggested upthread (which is where the idea of relying
on \sf came from) and Peter objected on the quite reasonable grounds
that people expect \df+ to provide this info and won't know to go
use \sf instead. So I'm afraid that suggestion is going nowhere.
I think the options that have a chance of happening are to rearrange
\df+ output more or less as in my patch, or to do nothing. I'm not very
happy about "do nothing", but that seems to be where we're ending up.
regards, tom lane