Piotr Stefaniak <postg...@piotr-stefaniak.me> writes:
> On 2017-06-13 22:23, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I could not find any places where reverting this change made the
>> results worse, so I'm unclear on why you made it.
> I must admit I'm a bit confused about why it's not fixed yet, but I'll
> have to analyze that later this week. But the idea was to convince
> indent that the following is not a declaration and therefore it
> shouldn't be formatted as such:
> typedef void (*voidptr) (int *);
Hm. But that's just a function pointer typedef, and we like the
formatting we're getting for those from this new version --- with or
without that change. What do you think needs to be done differently?
I note btw that this is not the first time we've discussed that
particular bit of code in this thread. I proposed a couple of
different possible changes to it before ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
