* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > ahh, ok, that makes a bit more sense, sorry for missing it. Still makes
> > me wonder why objargs gets special treatment at the top of the function
> > and objnames doesn't- seems like both should be initialized either
> > before being passed in (and perhaps an Assert to verify that they are),
> > or they should both be initialized, but I tend to prefer just Assert'ing
> > that they are correct on entry- either both are valid pointers to empty
> > lists, or both NULL.
>
> I guess I could initialize objnames to NIL also. I initialize objargs
> because that one is unused for a lot of object types (so I would have to
> set it to NIL in cases where it's not used), whereas objnames is always
> used and thus we know it's always initialized later.
>
> Maybe what I need here is just a longer comment explaining this ...
A one-line comment that it's always reset below would be sufficient for me.
Thanks for explaining it :),
Stephen
