Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: TRUE/FALSE vs true/false

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TRUE/FALSE vs true/false
Date: 2012-08-14 21:34:02
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Thu, Aug  4, 2011 at 09:00:11PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On tor, 2011-08-04 at 14:44 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
>>> I meant a mass "sed -e 's/TRUE/true/g'  -e 's/FALSE/false/g'" run
>>> so all the ~200 occurrences of both "TRUE" and "FALSE" get
>>> converted so the whole source tree is consistent.

>> I would be in favor of that.

> I have implemented this with the patch at:

Does this really do anything for us that will justify the extra
back-patching pain it will cause?  I don't see that it's improving
code readability any.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2012-08-14 21:36:35
Subject: Re: TRUE/FALSE vs true/false
Previous:From: Michael BraunDate: 2012-08-14 21:03:41
Subject: Re: superusers are members of all roles?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group