| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com" <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>, chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net |
| Subject: | Re: Should we remove -Wdeclaration-after-statement? |
| Date: | 2024-03-14 14:36:39 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaZRH9vUZgXb0Dk_=9udjXhjQB_0NC50Uo4J99PfyfO+g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 7:55 PM Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> > So my suggestion is for people to respond with -1, -0.5, +-0, +0.5, or
> > +1 to indicate support against/for the change.
>
> I'm +1 for the change, for these reasons:
>
> - Fewer back-patch merge conflicts. The decls section of long functions is a
> classic conflict point.
> - A mid-func decl demonstrates that its var is unused in the first half of the
> func.
> - We write Perl in the mixed decls style, without problems.
>
> For me personally, the "inconsistency" concern is negligible. We allowed "for
> (int i = 0", and that inconsistency has been invisible to me.
This thread was interesting as an opinion poll, but it seems clear
that the consensus is still against the proposed change, so I've
marked the CommitFest entry rejected.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-03-14 14:38:33 | Re: abi-compliance-checker |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-03-14 14:35:52 | Re: Catalog domain not-null constraints |