On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 11:27 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> writes: > > During a recent code review I was going to suggest that some new code > > would be more readable if the following: > > if (list_length(alist) == 0) ... > > > was replaced with: > > if (list_is_empty(alist)) ... > > > but then I found that actually no such function exists. > > That's because the *correct* way to write it is either "alist == NIL" > or just "!alist". I don't think we need yet another way to spell > that, and I'm entirely not on board with replacing either of those > idioms. But if you want to get rid of overcomplicated uses of > list_length() in favor of one of those spellings, have at it. >
Thanks for your advice. Yes, I saw that NIL is the definition of an empty list - that's how I implemented list_is_empty. OK, I'll ditch the function idea and just look at de-complicating those existing empty List checks. ------ Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
