Re: Propose a new function - list_is_empty

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Propose a new function - list_is_empty
Date: 2022-08-17 13:48:19
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> There are some places that add extra parenthesis like here
> while (list_length(sortclause) > list_length(previous) &&
> - list_length(new_elems) > 0)
> + (new_elems != NIL))

> Is it necessary to add that extra parenthesis?

I'd drop the parens in these particular examples because they are
inconsistent with the other parts of the same "if" condition.
I concur with Daniel's point that parens can be useful as a visual
aid even when they aren't strictly necessary --- but I don't think
we should make future readers wonder why one half of the "if"
is parenthesized and the other isn't.

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2022-08-17 13:50:23 Re: [RFC] building postgres with meson - v11
Previous Message Andrey Borodin 2022-08-17 12:28:02 Re: Amcheck verification of GiST and GIN