On mån, 2012-03-26 at 15:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> init_sequence(seq_relid, &elm, &seq_rel);
> - seq = read_info(elm, seq_rel, &buf);
> + read_info(elm, seq_rel, &buf);
>
>
> I have to object to this patch. In the blind service of eliminating
> warnings from some tool or other, you will introduce warnings from
> other tools? It's traditional for lint to complain about code that
> sometimes ignores the return value of a function, for instance.
Yes, but the return value is ignored in this case as well. Just
assigning it doesn't change that.
> I also do not think it does anything for readability for this call
> of read_info() to be unexpectedly unlike all the others.
I do not think that it is good code quality to assign something to a
variable and then assign something different to a variable later in the
same function. It is better, on the other hand, if a function call
looks different if what it's supposed to do is different.
But I don't want to get hung up on this. I thought it was just an
oversight.
