On Sunday, September 30, 2012 06:57:32 PM Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > Patch 0001 contains a assert_compatible_types(a, b) and a > > assert_compatible_types_bool(a, b) macro which I found very useful to > > make it harder to misuse the api. I think its generally useful and > > possibly should be used in more places. > > This seems like basically a good idea, but the macro names are very > unfortunately chosen: they don't comport with our other names for > assertion macros, and they imply that the test is symmetric which it > isn't. It's also unclear what the point of the _bool version is > (namely, to be used in expression contexts in macros). > > I suggest instead > > AssertVariableIsOfType(varname, typename) > > AssertVariableIsOfTypeMacro(varname, typename) > > Or possibly we should leave off the "Assert" prefix, since this will be > a compile-time-constant check and thus not really all that much like > the existing run-time Assert mechanism. Or write "Check" instead of > "Assert", or some other verb. > > Anybody got another color for this bikeshed? No, happy with the new name.
Thanks for committing! Wondered for a minute what the point of autoconfiscation is/was but I see that e.g. clang already works... Nice. The bizarre syntactic placement requirements directly come from the standard btw. No idea why they thought that would be a good idea... (check 6.7.1, 6.7.2.1, 6.7.10). Perhaps we need to decouple _Static_assert support from compound statement support at some point, but we will see. Greetings, Andres -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers