Re: TRUE/FALSE vs true/false - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: TRUE/FALSE vs true/false
Date
Msg-id 20120814213635.GB15578@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: TRUE/FALSE vs true/false  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: TRUE/FALSE vs true/false
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:34:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > On Thu, Aug  4, 2011 at 09:00:11PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> On tor, 2011-08-04 at 14:44 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> >>> I meant a mass "sed -e 's/TRUE/true/g'  -e 's/FALSE/false/g'" run
> >>> so all the ~200 occurrences of both "TRUE" and "FALSE" get
> >>> converted so the whole source tree is consistent.
> 
> >> I would be in favor of that.
> 
> > I have implemented this with the patch at:
> >     http://momjian.us/expire/true_diff.txt
> 
> Does this really do anything for us that will justify the extra
> back-patching pain it will cause?  I don't see that it's improving
> code readability any.

I think it is more of a consistency issue.  There were multiple people
who wanted this change.  Of course, some of those people don't backport
stuff.

Other comments?

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: TRUE/FALSE vs true/false
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: GetSnapshotData() comments