Hello Corey,
> I wished for the same thing, happy to use one if it is made known to me.
> I pulled that pattern from somewhere else in the code, and given that the
> max number of args for a command is around 4, I'm not too worried about
> scaling.
If there are expressions one day like pgbench, the number of arguments
becomes arbitrary. Have you looked at PQExpBuffer?
>> However there is an impact on testing because of all these changes. ISTM
>> that test cases should reflect this situation and test that \cd, \edit, ...
>> are indeed ignored properly and taking account there expected args...
>
> I think one grand
>
> \if false
> \a
> \c some_connect_string
> ...
> \z some_table_name
> \endif
> should do the trick,
Yes. Maybe some commands could be on the same line as well.
> but it wouldn't detect memory leaks.
No miracle...
>> There seems to be pattern repetition for _ev _ef and _sf _sv. Would it
>> make sense to create a function instead of keeping the initial copy-paste?
>
> Yes, and a few things like that, but I wanted this patch to keep as much
> code as-is as possible.
If you put the generic function at the same place, one would be more or
less kept and the other would be just removed?
"git diff --patience -w" gives a rather convenient output for looking at
the patch.
>> I would suggest to put together all if-related backslash command, so that
>> the stack management is all in one function instead of 4.
>
> I recognize the urge to group them together, but would there be any actual
> code sharing between them? Wouldn't I be either re-checking the string
> "cmd" again, or otherwise setting an enum that I immediately re-check
> inside the all_branching_commands() function?
I do not see that as a significant issue, especially compared to the
benefit of having the automaton transition management in a single place.
--
Fabien.
