Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> Attached patch harmonizes pg_bsd_indent's function parameter names, so
> that they match the names used in corresponding function definitions.
Hmm, these aren't really harmonizing inconsistencies, but overruling
somebody's style decision to leave parameter names out of the extern
declarations. That's a style I don't like personally, but some do.
> I have been putting this off because I wasn't sure that the policy
> should be the same for pg_bsd_indent. Is there any reason to think
> that this will create more work down the line? It seems like it might,
> due to some kind of need to keep pg_bsd_indent's consistent with
> upstream BSD indent.
We are, at least in theory, trying to stay within hailing distance
of the upstream; that's the primary reason why we've not touched
the indentation style of pg_bsd_indent itself. Still, two lines
is not going to make much of a difference in whether patches can
be passed back and forth (whereas reindentation would kill that
somewhat thoroughly).
Anyway, after chewing on it for a few minutes, no objection here.
regards, tom lane
