Re: APR 1.0 released

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> > I don't understand most of this patch. What difference does changing the
> > preprocessor test order make?
>
> I think Bruce was mostly trying to make all the similar tests look
> alike. Also I agree that "if a && !b" is clearer than "if !b && a";
> the latter requires a bit more thought to parse the extent of the !
> operator...

Right, just consistency.

> However, per Michael's report there's some oversight in this patch.
> I'm not presently ready to update to CVS tip; who can find the problem?

I have not seen the report yet. I had no plan to change the behavior
except for Cygwin.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073