Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I have had a quick look at it. The perl is more than ugly - it's
unmaintainable IMNSHO. It violates perl best practice in many ways, and
reflects the age of the a2p utility quite badly.
There is no guarantee that the script won't have to be looked at.
Rather, the reverse is our experience, so this is a real consideration.
I agree that a perl version is much more desirable, but it really
requires a hand translation from awk rather than a hacked a2p output.
IMHO awk was the wrong language to begin with, so I'd vote for a fresh
implementation with re-thought data structures rather than just cleaning
up around the edges.
That was what I was intending. The awk would just be a guide as to the
required logic.
However, I would like any reimplementation to
happen after we get this in, not before. As long as we are agreed that
a perl script is the appropriate tool, someone can go off in a corner
and reimplement without holding up anything else. And it's surely past
time that Michael stops having to sync ecpg with the main grammar by
hand.
Sure. No argument at all from me.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
