On Sunday, September 30, 2012 06:57:32 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > Patch 0001 contains a assert_compatible_types(a, b) and a
> > assert_compatible_types_bool(a, b) macro which I found very useful to
> > make it harder to misuse the api. I think its generally useful and
> > possibly should be used in more places.
>
> This seems like basically a good idea, but the macro names are very
> unfortunately chosen: they don't comport with our other names for
> assertion macros, and they imply that the test is symmetric which it
> isn't. It's also unclear what the point of the _bool version is
> (namely, to be used in expression contexts in macros).
>
> I suggest instead
>
> AssertVariableIsOfType(varname, typename)
>
> AssertVariableIsOfTypeMacro(varname, typename)
>
> Or possibly we should leave off the "Assert" prefix, since this will be
> a compile-time-constant check and thus not really all that much like
> the existing run-time Assert mechanism. Or write "Check" instead of
> "Assert", or some other verb.
>
> Anybody got another color for this bikeshed?
No, happy with the new name.
Thanks for committing! Wondered for a minute what the point of autoconfiscation
is/was but I see that e.g. clang already works... Nice.
The bizarre syntactic placement requirements directly come from the standard
btw. No idea why they thought that would be a good idea... (check 6.7.1,
6.7.2.1, 6.7.10).
Perhaps we need to decouple _Static_assert support from compound statement
support at some point, but we will see.
Greetings,
Andres
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
