Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Greg Smith wrote:
> >> Scraping that HTML seems like it would be pretty straightforward.
>
> > It's awfully incomplete. Bruce said to me the other day on IM that the
> > list he was getting with the Linux version of find_typedef was something
> > like 2800 symbols. I checked the doxygen list and I only see about a
> > dozen for each letter, so there's a whole lot missing here.
>
> [ click click... ] A quick grep counts 2154 occurrences of the word
> 'typedef' in our tree. Some of them are no doubt false hits
> (documentation etc), but on the other hand you need to add typedefs
> coming from system headers.
>
> doxygen's 200-some is clearly an order of magnitude too low, but I
> wonder whether Bruce's list hasn't got some false hits ...
My list is at:
http://momjian.us/tmp/pgtypedefs
pgindent is probably 97% optimal. Getting a better typedef list will
change that to perhaps 97.2% optimal. There is a lot of discussion
happening to try to get that 0.2%. :-O
--
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
