Tom Lane wrote:
> "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> > I don't understand most of this patch. What difference does changing the
> > preprocessor test order make?
>
> I think Bruce was mostly trying to make all the similar tests look
> alike. Also I agree that "if a && !b" is clearer than "if !b && a";
> the latter requires a bit more thought to parse the extent of the !
> operator...
Right, just consistency.
> However, per Michael's report there's some oversight in this patch.
> I'm not presently ready to update to CVS tip; who can find the problem?
I have not seen the report yet. I had no plan to change the behavior
except for Cygwin.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
