Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Tom Lane said:
>
>>I'm fairly displeased with what pgindent has done to single-line PG_TRY
>>constructs, as in this example from pl_exec.c:
>>
>>*************** exec_stmt_block(PLpgSQL_execstate * esta
>>*** 911,922 ****
>> SPI_result_code_string(xrc));
>>
>> PG_TRY();
>>! {
>>! rc = exec_stmts(estate, block->body);
>>! }
>> PG_CATCH();
>> {
>>! ErrorData *edata;
>> PLpgSQL_exceptions *exceptions;
>> int j;
>>
>>--- 912,921 ----
>> SPI_result_code_string(xrc));
>>
>> PG_TRY();
>>! rc = exec_stmts(estate, block->body);
>> PG_CATCH();
>> {
>>! ErrorData *edata;
>> PLpgSQL_exceptions *exceptions;
>> int j;
>>
>>*************** exec_stmt_block(PLpgSQL_execstate * esta
>>
>>On the whole I'd prefer that pgindent not suppress "unnecessary"
>>brace pairs at all.
>
>
>
> I had that argument a while ago with Bruce and lost :-) . It does horrible
> things to if/else constructs too. The workaround is to put a comment in the
> block. On the whole I agree with you, though. If I put braces in my program
> it's for a reason, and the indenter shouldn't think it knows better than me.
Well I'm not exactly a C coder, I'm a C++ one and it's quite common use the
extra scope in order to reduce the automatic variable life, I don't know how
much the extra scope are used in the C world, however remove an "extra scope"
like that is not only "horrible", is *wrong* and can be cause of future pain:
foo ( int a )
{ ... { int a; } // use the formal parameter
}
if the extra scope is removed the local variable "shadow" the formal
parameter. Some compilers do not warning you, IIRC the Digital had this funny omission,
( however you can miss the warning ) and hours of debugging are behind the corner.
I hope that Bruce change his mind...
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
