Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@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
