Re: pgindent vs. git whitespace check

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgindent vs. git whitespace check
Date: 2023-02-22 14:52:14
Message-ID: 42726.1677077534@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Commit e4602483e95 accidentally introduced a situation where pgindent
> disagrees with the git whitespace check. The code is

> conn = libpqsrv_connect_params(keywords, values,
> /* expand_dbname = */ false,
> PG_WAIT_EXTENSION);

> where the current source file has 4 spaces before the /*, and the
> whitespace check says that that should be a tab.

Hmm, I don't think that's per project style in the first place.
Most places that annotate function arguments do it like

conn = libpqsrv_connect_params(keywords, values,
false, /* expand_dbname */
PG_WAIT_EXTENSION);

pgindent has never been very kind to non-end-of-line comments, and
I'm not excited about working on making it do so. As a thought
experiment, what would happen if we reversed course and started
allowing "//" comments? Naive conversion of this comment could
break the code altogether. (Plenty of programming languages
don't even *have* non-end-of-line comments.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonathan S. Katz 2023-02-22 17:04:29 Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences, take 2
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2023-02-22 14:49:48 Re: pgindent vs. git whitespace check