boolin comment not moved when code was refactored

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

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

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.

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

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

Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> writes:

PSA v2.

Pushed.

regards, tom lane

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