From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: warnings for invalid function casts
In-reply-to: <d04f3b48-8195-aa83-8862-b6d3747fed30@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <1e97628e-6447-b4fd-e230-d109cec2d584@2ndquadrant.com>
 <474790.1593526505@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20200630192135.nwlza2u57dy3qej4@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <496552.1593545900@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <c764383a-3f9e-f5ba-79d1-8824fe73340f@2ndquadrant.com>
 <931660.1593787200@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <d04f3b48-8195-aa83-8862-b6d3747fed30@2ndquadrant.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Sat, 04 Jul 2020 13:36:44 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1183183.1593872167.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2020 10:16:07 -0400
Message-ID: <1183184.1593872167@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Do people prefer a typedef or just writing it out, like it's done in the 
> Python code?

I'm for a typedef.  There is *nothing* readable about "(void (*) (void))",
and the fact that it's theoretically incorrect for the purpose doesn't
exactly aid intelligibility either.  With a typedef, not only are
the uses more readable but there's a place to put a comment explaining
that this is notionally wrong but it's what gcc specifies to use
to suppress thus-and-such warnings.

> But if we prefer a typedef then I'd propose 
> GenericFuncPtr like in the initial patch.

That name is OK by me.

			regards, tom lane