Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 4:29 AM Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote: >> - state->oneCol = (origTupdesc->natts == 1) ? true : false; >> + state->oneCol = origTupdesc->natts == 1;
FWIW, I am definitely not a fan of removing the parentheses in this context, because readers might wonder if you meant an "a = b = 1" multiple-assignment, or even misread it as that and be confused. So I'd prefer state->oneCol = (origTupdesc->natts == 1); In the context of "return (a == b)", I'm about neutral on whether to keep the parens or not, but I wonder why this patch does some of one and some of the other. I do agree that "x ? true : false" is silly in contexts where x is guaranteed to yield zero or one. What you need to be careful about is where x might yield other bitpatterns, for example "(flags & SOMEFLAG) ? true : false". Pre-C99, this type of coding was often *necessary*. With C99, it's only necessary if you're not sure that the compiler will cast the result to boolean. regards, tom lane