On 04/25/2011 08:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> On 04/25/2011 07:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Well, -Ttypedef is wrong on its face. Right would be a switch
>>> specifying the name of the file to read the typedef list from.
>>> Then you don't need massive script-level infrastructure to try
>>> to spoonfeed that data to the program doing the work.
>> Ok, but that would account for about 5 lines of the current 400 or so in
>> pgindent, and we'd have to extend our patch of BSD indent to do it.
> Huh? I thought the context here was reimplementing it from scratch in
> perl.
yes.
>> That's not to say that we shouldn't, but we should be aware of how much
>> it will buy us on its own.
> The point isn't so much to remove a few lines of shell code (though I
> think that's a bigger deal than you say, if we want this to be usable on
> Windows). It's to not run into shell line length limits, which I
> believe we are dangerously close to already on many platforms.
>
>
The current script calls our (patched) BSD indent. Any rewrite would
have to also. It (the BSD indent) doesn't have any facility to pass a
typedef file parameter. If you want that we have to patch the C code. No
amount of rewriting in Perl or anything else would overcome that. My
suggestion was to work around it as part of a script rewrite, but you
didn't seem to like that idea.
cheers
andrew