Re: pgindent vs. pgperltidy command-line arguments

On 2023-06-21 We 05:09, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 20.06.23 17:38, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>> +1, although I wonder if we shouldn't follow pgindent's new lead
>>>> and require some argument(s).
>>>
>>> That makes sense to me.  Here is a small update with this behavior 
>>> change and associated documentation update.
>>
>> I'm intending to add some of the new pgindent features to pgperltidy. 
>> Preparatory to that here's a rewrite of pgperltidy in perl - no new 
>> features yet but it does remove the hardcoded path, and requires you 
>> to pass in one or more files / directories as arguments.
>
> Are you planning to touch pgperlcritic and pgperlsyncheck as well? 


Yeah, it would make sense to.


> If not, part of my patch would still be useful.  Maybe I should commit 
> my posted patch for PG16, to keep consistency with pgindent, and then 
> your work would presumably be considered for PG17.


That sounds like a good plan.


cheers


andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com