Re: perltidy version - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: perltidy version
Date
Msg-id CAA8=A78sL6gRnyb9e_A+BV6s4kPGptHx7J61vhok1UYEO=FhmA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: perltidy version  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> Ah yeah, if I apply that one first, the diff from using 20140328 is much
>> smaller. Attached is that one, which means the difference between the two
>> perltidy versions.
>
> I'm hardly a Perl guru, so I'm not going to opine on whether these
> changes are for the better or worse.  They're definitely not very
> extensive, though.  If the folks here who do hack Perl a lot think
> the 20140328 output is better, I'm fine with switching.
>


It's a bit hard to tell just looking at the patch, but some of the
removal of leading whitespace looks a bit unfortunate (.e.g. genbki,
duplicate_oids). Maybe it would OK when applied. One thing I have
found is that string literals need to be broken up to less than the
line length or modern perltidy will happily realign them to the start
of the line regardless of other settings. I see what looks like some
evidence of that here.

cheers

andrew


-- 
Andrew Dunstan                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: slow array(subselect)
Next
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: perltidy version