Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Doc: modernize comment for boolin().

  1. boolin comment not moved when code was refactored

    Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> — 2023-10-19T02:30:59Z

    Hi.

I happened upon a function comment referring to non-existent code
(that code was moved to another location many years ago).

Probably better to move that comment too. Thoughts?

PSA.

======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia

  2. Re: boolin comment not moved when code was refactored

    Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> — 2023-10-19T02:57:57Z

    On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 10:35 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi.
>
> I happened upon a function comment referring to non-existent code
> (that code was moved to another location many years ago).
>
> Probably better to move that comment too. Thoughts?


Agreed. +1 to move that comment.

Thanks
Richard

  3. Re: boolin comment not moved when code was refactored

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2023-10-19T03:55:24Z

    Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 10:35 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I happened upon a function comment referring to non-existent code
>> (that code was moved to another location many years ago).
>> 
>> Probably better to move that comment too. Thoughts?

> Agreed. +1 to move that comment.

Hm, I'm inclined to think that the comment lines just above:

 *        boolin            - converts "t" or "f" to 1 or 0
 *
 * Check explicitly for "true/false" and TRUE/FALSE, 1/0, YES/NO, ON/OFF.
 * Reject other values.

are also well past their sell-by date.  The one-line summary
"converts "t" or "f" to 1 or 0" is not remotely accurate anymore.
Perhaps we should just drop it?  Or else reword to something
vaguer, like "input function for boolean".  The "Check explicitly"
para no longer describes logic in this function.  We could move
it to parse_bool_with_len, but that seems to have a suitable
comment already.

In short, maybe the whole comment should just be

/*
 *	boolin - input function for type boolean
 */

Agreed with your original point, though.

			regards, tom lane

  4. Re: boolin comment not moved when code was refactored

    Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> — 2023-10-19T04:17:33Z

    On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 2:55 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 10:35 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I happened upon a function comment referring to non-existent code
> >> (that code was moved to another location many years ago).
> >>
> >> Probably better to move that comment too. Thoughts?
>
> > Agreed. +1 to move that comment.
>
> Hm, I'm inclined to think that the comment lines just above:
>
>  *        boolin            - converts "t" or "f" to 1 or 0
>  *
>  * Check explicitly for "true/false" and TRUE/FALSE, 1/0, YES/NO, ON/OFF.
>  * Reject other values.
>
> are also well past their sell-by date.  The one-line summary
> "converts "t" or "f" to 1 or 0" is not remotely accurate anymore.
> Perhaps we should just drop it?  Or else reword to something
> vaguer, like "input function for boolean".  The "Check explicitly"
> para no longer describes logic in this function.  We could move
> it to parse_bool_with_len, but that seems to have a suitable
> comment already.
>

Yes, I had the same thought about the rest of the comment being
outdated but just wanted to test the water to see if a small change
was accepted before I did too much.

> In short, maybe the whole comment should just be
>
> /*
>  *      boolin - input function for type boolean
>  */
>

How about "boolin - converts a boolean string value to 1 or 0"

======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia.

  5. Re: boolin comment not moved when code was refactored

    Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org> — 2023-10-19T04:26:54Z

    On 10/19/23 06:17, Peter Smith wrote:
>> In short, maybe the whole comment should just be
>>
>> /*
>>   *      boolin - input function for type boolean
>>   */
>>
> How about "boolin - converts a boolean string value to 1 or 0"


Personally, I do not like exposing the implementation of a boolean (it 
is a base type that is not a numeric), so I prefer Tom's suggestion.
-- 
Vik Fearing

  6. Re: boolin comment not moved when code was refactored

    Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> — 2023-10-19T05:17:43Z

    On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 3:26 PM Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org> wrote:
>
> On 10/19/23 06:17, Peter Smith wrote:
> >> In short, maybe the whole comment should just be
> >>
> >> /*
> >>   *      boolin - input function for type boolean
> >>   */
> >>
> > How about "boolin - converts a boolean string value to 1 or 0"
>
>
> Personally, I do not like exposing the implementation of a boolean (it
> is a base type that is not a numeric), so I prefer Tom's suggestion.

OK. Done that way.

PSA v2.

======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia

  7. Re: boolin comment not moved when code was refactored

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2023-10-19T15:31:58Z

    Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> writes:
> PSA v2.

Pushed.

			regards, tom lane

  8. Re: boolin comment not moved when code was refactored

    Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> — 2023-10-19T22:08:15Z

    On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 2:31 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> writes:
> > PSA v2.
>
> Pushed.
>

Thanks for pushing.

======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia