Re: Making C function declaration parameter names consistent with corresponding definition names

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 6:20 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I think they're easily Stroustrup's worst idea ever. You're basically
> throwing away an opportunity for documentation, and that documentation
> is often sorely needed.

He could at least point to C++ pure virtual functions, where omitting
a parameter name in the base class supposedly conveys useful
information. I don't find that argument particularly convincing
myself, even in a C++ context, but at least it's an argument. Doesn't
apply here in any case.

> I'd view the current state of reorderbuffer.h as pretty unacceptable on
> stylistic grounds no matter which position you take. Having successive
> declarations randomly using named or unnamed parameters is seriously
> ugly and distracting, at least to my eye. We don't need such blatant
> reminders of how many cooks have stirred this broth.

I'll come up with a revision that deals with that too, then. Shouldn't
be too much more work.

I suppose that I ought to backpatch a fix for the really egregious
issue in hba.h, and leave it at that on stable branches.

--
Peter Geoghegan