On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 11:08:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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);
Good point --- extra parentheses are not always bad. > > 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. Agreed. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
