On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 6:23 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> I wonder if we're interested in keeping a (very short) manually-
> maintained list of symbols that we know are in use but the scripts
> don't extract for whatever reason.
+1. I think this idea has been proposed and rejected before, but I
think it's more important to have our code indented correctly than to
be able to rely on a 100% automated process for gathering typedefs.
There is of course the risk that the manually generated file will
accumulate stale cruft over time, but I don't really see that being a
big problem. First, it doesn't cost much to have a few extra symbols
in there. Second, I suspect someone will go through it at least every
couple of years, if not more often, and figure out which entries are
still doing something.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
