From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Making C function declaration parameter names consistent with
 corresponding definition names
In-reply-to: 
 <CAH2-WznJt9CMM9KJTMjJh_zbL5hD9oX44qdJ4aqZtjFi-zA3Tg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAH2-WznJt9CMM9KJTMjJh_zbL5hD9oX44qdJ4aqZtjFi-zA3Tg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
	message dated "Fri, 16 Sep 2022 15:42:13 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3913122.1663370391.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 19:19:51 -0400
Message-ID: <3913123.1663370391@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3913123.1663370391%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> I have to admit that these inconsistencies are a pet peeve of mine. I
> find them distracting, and have a history of fixing them on an ad-hoc
> basis. But there are real practical arguments in favor of being strict
> about it as a matter of policy -- it's not *just* neatnikism.

I agree, this has always been a pet peeve of mine as well.  I would
have guessed there were fewer examples than you found, because I've
generally fixed any such cases I happened to notice.

			regards, tom lane