On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 12:54 AM, Andrew Dunstan > <andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> >> On 06/14/2018 02:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> >>> We used to use prefixes for common struct members names to help >>> disambiguate across members that would otherwise have identical names in >>> different structs. Our convention was to use _ as a separator. This >>> convention has been partially lost, but seems we can use it to good >>> effect here, by renaming ammissingPresent to am_present and ammissing to >>> am_missing (I would go as far as suggesting am_default or am_substitute >>> or something like that). >> >> am_present and am_value perhaps? I'm not dogmatic about it. >> > > +1. Attached patch changed the names as per suggestion. > >> >> >> >>> BTW I think "the result stored" is correct English. >>> >> >> Yes, it certainly is. >> > > Okay. > > How about attached? >
Andrew, Alvaro, do you think we can go ahead with above naming suggestions or do we want to brainstorm more on it? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
