Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>> That doesn't mean, at least to me, that we should forgo considering
>> better alternatives.
> I don't think so, either, but if we could agree that "Tom's patch >
> doing nothing" then he could commit it and we could debate whether
> there's something even better.
I think the debate is more about whether moving the source display
functionality over to \sf is a better solution than rearranging \df+
output. (If we had consensus to do that, I'd be happy to go code it,
but I'm not going to invest the effort when it seems like we don't.)
If we'd had \sf all along, I think it's likely that we would never
have put source-code display into \df. But of course we didn't,
and what would have been best in a green field is not necessarily
what's best or achievable given existing reality. Both Robert and
Peter have put forward the argument that people are used to finding
this info in \df+ output, and I think that deserves a whole lot of
weight. The \sf solution might be cleaner, but it's not so much
better that it can justify forcing people to relearn their habits.
So I think that rearranging \df+ output is really what we ought to
be doing here.
I'm not necessarily wedded to any of the precise details of what I did
in my patch --- for instance, maybe function bodies ought to be indented
one tab stop? But we've not gotten to the merits of such points, for
lack of agreement about whether this is the basic approach to take.
regards, tom lane
