Re: [HACKERS] \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands:\quit_if, \quit_unless)
| От | Fabien COELHO |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands:\quit_if, \quit_unless) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | alpine.DEB.2.20.1703192111050.4878@lancre обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands:\quit_if, \quit_unless)
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Tom, > I'm not entirely convinced that function-per-command is an improvement > though. [...] > I don't have a definite opinion on that core question yet, since I've not > read this version of the patch. Anybody else want to give an opinion? My 0.02€: I've already provided my view... Personnally I like good functions. Maybe a per-command-family set of functions could improve the code readability, but (1) I'm not sure this is achieved by this patch (eg the if-related state management is now dispatched in 4 functions) and (2) I'm not sure that this approach helps much with respect to trying to factor out backslash-command-related active-or-not argument management. However I have not looked at the patch in detail. I'm planing to do so later this week. -- Fabien.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: