Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> That would certainly be better than the current approach, since
>> presumably it would cover not only Windows but the other
>> conditionally-compiled stuff that Bruce chooses not to compile on
>> his own machine.
> It would, as someone said, rock. But it wouldn't really address the ability of
> a developer to run pgindent on code he's about to send in, since it wouldn't
> have any typedefs that developer just created.
Well, that list is just a simple text file listing typedef names,
so it'd hardly be difficult to add your own to the list.
>> I still wish we could build the list directly from the source code,
>> but I have no suggestions for tools that would do it.
> If we wanted to do that I have a few questions:
> 1) I take it we feel safe guaranteeing that we won't use any fancy macros
> inside typedefs. So no '#define pgtype(x) _pg_##x' or anythin like that.
Hmm ... we are fairly crawling with struct tags built that way:
/* Introduces a catalog's structure definition */
#define CATALOG(name,oid) typedef struct CppConcat(FormData_,name)
but offhand I can't think of any actual typedef names built with ##.
Does indent need a preset list of struct tags? Seems that would be
stupid ...
> 2) How much information do we need about the typedefs? Just their name?
Right.
> 3) How would this work with typedefs which come from system or library
> includes?
Ouch, that's a real good point. Maybe a certain amount of platform
dependence is inevitable.
regards, tom lane
