"Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> I don't understand most of this patch. What difference does changing the
> preprocessor test order make?
I think Bruce was mostly trying to make all the similar tests look
alike. Also I agree that "if a && !b" is clearer than "if !b && a";
the latter requires a bit more thought to parse the extent of the !
operator...
However, per Michael's report there's some oversight in this patch.
I'm not presently ready to update to CVS tip; who can find the problem?
regards, tom lane