Re: Improving the notation for ecpg.addons rules

On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 01:13:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> While I've not done it in the attached, perhaps it would be
> but I think that might be a step too far.  IMO it's not adding much
> readability, and it seems like introducing an unnecessary dependency
> on exactly how the gram.y alternatives are laid out.

Not being too aggressive with the changes sounds like a good thing
here.

> BTW, the attached patch won't apply to HEAD, it's meant to apply
> after the patch series being discussed at [1].  So I won't stick
> this in the CF yet.
> 
> Thoughts?

Seeing changes like "stmtClosePortalStmt" changing to "stmt
ClosePortalStmt" is clearly an improvement in readability.
SignedIconstIconst was also fun.  Your change is a good idea.

It looks like %replace_line expects all its elements to have one space
between each token, still this is not enforced with a check across its
hardcoded elements?
--
Michael