2010/8/8 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
>> updated patch attached
>
> What exactly is the point of the \sf command? It seems like quite a lot
> of added code for a feature that nobody has requested, and whose
> definition is about as ad-hoc as could be. Personally I'd much sooner
> use \ef for looking at a function definition. I think if \sf had been
> submitted as a separate patch, rather than being snuck in with a feature
> people do want, it wouldn't be accepted.
I disagree. Now, you cannot to show a detail of function in well
readable form. Personally I prefer \sf+ form. Because I can see line
numbers, but \sf form is important for some copy paste operations. I
don't think, so \ef can replace \sf. It is based on my personal
experience. When I have to do some fast fix or fast decision I need to
see a source code of some functions (but I am in customer's
environment). Starting a external editor is slow and usually you can
not there to start your preferable editor.
If I return back then my first idea was to modify current \df command
to some practical form. Later in discussion was decided so new command
will be better.
>
> The current patch doesn't even compile warning-free :-(
>
> command.c: In function `exec_command':
> command.c:559: warning: `lineno' might be used uninitialized in this function
> command.c: In function `editFile':
> command.c:1729: warning: `editor_lineno_switch' might be used uninitialized in this function
there is some strange - it didn't find it in my environment. But I
recheck it tomorrow morning.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
>
> regards, tom lane
>