> On 12 Jul 2019, at 17:04, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> writes: >> To take into account Tom's comment, I'd suggest a middle ground by >> commenting a public and private part explicitely in the struct, something >> like:
Thanks for the review!
>> typedef struct {
>> /* PUBLIC members to be used by callers ... */
>> ...
>> ...
>> /* PRIVATE members, not intended for external usage ... */
>> ...
>> } ... ;
>
> One problem is that the members we've retroactively decided are "public"
> are in the middle of the struct :-(.
>
> But it occurs to me that there's no good reason we couldn't re-order the
> members, as long as we only do so on HEAD and not in released versions.
> That would make it a bit less inconsistent and easier to add labels
> such as you suggest.
I quite like this suggestion, so I’ve changed the patch to do this. Removed
the doc: in the commit message to indicate that this is no longer just touching
documentation.
cheers ./daniel
spitupletable-v2.patch
Description: Binary data
