On 04/20/2011 05:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan<and...@dunslane.net> writes:
On 04/20/2011 04:28 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
So the list of possible additions Andrew supplied are cases where we
never reference those typedefs --- seems like a cleanup opportunity.
I think the best cleanup idea is Aidan's, namely is we have declared
"typdef struct foo { ... } foo;" we should use "foo" in the code
instead of "struct foo". Then the typedef will be referenced, and the
code will be cleaner, and we won't run into the pgindent "struct" bug
either, so it's a win/win/win.
We want to do that in any case. I think that Bruce was suggesting going
further and actively removing unreferenced struct tags from the
declaration sites. I'm less enthused about that. It would save nothing
except some probably-unmeasurable amount of compile time, and it'd
result in a lot of diffs that might come back to bite future
back-patching efforts.
Well he says not, but in any case I agree there's no great gain from it.
It's a well established C idiom, and as you pointed out upthread the
struct tag is just about required for defining recursive structs anyway.
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
