Tom Lane escribió: > Ah. That's a bit idiosyncratic to pgindent. What it does for a > function definition makes sense, I think: it lines up all the > parameters to start in the same column: > > static int > myfunction(int foo, > int bar) > > What is not obvious is that the same amount of hanging indent is > used for the function's *prototype*, even though the first line > is not the same: > > static int myfunction(int foo, > int bar); > > ie, the indent is length of function name plus 1. I find this a bit > stupid myself
The reason this is like this is that the indent binary modifies the prototype exactly like the function definition, and then the awk program that's used in the pipeline "pulls up" the second line: # Move prototype names to the same line as return type. Useful for ctags. # Indent should do this, but it does not. It formats prototypes just # like real functions. In this day and age there's probably no reason to do this. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
