| 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 |
| Message-ID: | 1754766.1660744099@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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
| 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 |