Re: Scanner/Parser question - what does _P imply?

From: <korryd(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Scanner/Parser question - what does _P imply?
Date: 2007-01-18 10:57:14
Message-ID: 1169117834.2805.72.camel@sakai.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> P = Parser. The reason for the _P is just to avoid conflicts with
> other definitions of the macro name, either in our own code or various
> platforms' header files. We haven't been totally consistent about it,
> but roughly speaking we've stuck _P on when it was either known or
> seemed likely that there might be a conflict.
>
> Some years ago there was discussion of consistently P-ifying *all* those
> macros, but it didn't get done; I think Thomas or somebody objected that
> it would make gram.y needlessly harder to read.

Ahhh... now it's clear.

Thanks.

-- Korry

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2007-01-18 11:36:53 Re: Design notes for EquivalenceClasses
Previous Message korryd 2007-01-18 10:24:59 Scanner/Parser question - what does _P imply?