On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Peter Geoghegan
<peter.geoghegan86@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31 January 2011 13:02, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>> Similarly, I dislike uglifying code if we can help it - and this seems
>> like a common enough case to me that a macro isn't the end of the
>> world to improve readability.
>
> Bear in mind that we don't have to live with those casts forever -
> when we drop 2.8 support, we can refactor. Are you sure that it's
> actually possible to have the preprocessor replace a call to a member
> function on an object with a cast like that? I've never seen that
> before, and I couldn't produce a working testcase.
I tried it on VC++ and it didn't complain. Didn't test gcc though.
> Here's how I see it. We're not actually appending a bool in the case
> of ctlListView - we're appending a "Yes" or a "No", so a different
> function name is actually justified. I have no such justification for
> sysSettings, but on the other hand, there seems to be no justification
> for the bool overload of write there to even exist (it isn't called),
> so I've just removed it. Should I have followed what I did for
> ctlListView?
If it's not used, it can go. With some of the early utility classes we
wrote variations of member functions that we thought we were going to
use, as well as ones that we once did use, but since have become
obsolete.
> I'm happy with that. I agree with the need to keep something that
> sensitive off-list. I will gather those names.
Thanks.
> I would like to see us tie up all the loose ends with the work done to
> date and to get it committed. I feel that we need to draw a line under
> it before really moving on to OGL and the Flex/Bison problem.
OK - please send the updated patch and I'll test it again.
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company