Re: popcount

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 9:42 PM Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 11:38, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
>
>> You bring up an excellent point, which is that our builtin functions
>> could use a lot more documentation directly to hand than they now
>> have. For example, there's a lot of needless ambiguity created by
>> function comments which leave it up in the air as to which positional
>> argument does what in functions like string_to_array, which take
>> multiple arguments. I'll try to get a patch in for the next CF with a
>> fix for that, and a separate one that doesn't put it on people to use
>> \df+ to find the comments we do provide. There have been proposals for
>> including an optional space for COMMENT ON in DDL, but I suspect that
>> those won't fly unless and until they make their way into the
>> standard.
>>
>
> Since you mention \df+, I wonder if this is the time to consider removing
> the source code from \df+ (since we have \sf) and adding in the proacl
> instead?
>
> The cf bot failed to apply the patch (v4-0001-popcount.patch) because of
the wrong "-p"
I have regenerated the patch, can you please take a look.

http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_32_2917.log

=== applying patch ./v4-0001-popcount.patch
can't find file to patch at input line 21
Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option?
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------

--
Ibrar Ahmed