On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 at 18:53, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> writes: > > Another reason I deleted that is that > > since the file contains helper functions, I didn't want to write a new > > comment based on what functions are there now as it may put someone > > else off from adding new ones if the new one doesn't fit the comment. > > Perhaps we could define it as "Support routines for dealing with > DefElem nodes". You're right that maybe someone would want to > throw in something else, but would it really belong? The file's > charter seems far narrower now than it once was.
I felt that it was better to leave the scope a bit wider than that, but I don't feel very strongly, so I've pushed it with your wording suggestion. Thanks David
