On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 9:42 PM Isaac Morland <isaac.morl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 11:38, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > >> You bring up an excellent point, which is that our builtin functions >> could use a lot more documentation directly to hand than they now >> have. For example, there's a lot of needless ambiguity created by >> function comments which leave it up in the air as to which positional >> argument does what in functions like string_to_array, which take >> multiple arguments. I'll try to get a patch in for the next CF with a >> fix for that, and a separate one that doesn't put it on people to use >> \df+ to find the comments we do provide. There have been proposals for >> including an optional space for COMMENT ON in DDL, but I suspect that >> those won't fly unless and until they make their way into the >> standard. >> > > Since you mention \df+, I wonder if this is the time to consider removing > the source code from \df+ (since we have \sf) and adding in the proacl > instead? > > The cf bot failed to apply the patch (v4-0001-popcount.patch) because of the wrong "-p" I have regenerated the patch, can you please take a look. http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_32_2917.log === applying patch ./v4-0001-popcount.patch can't find file to patch at input line 21 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- -- Ibrar Ahmed
v5-0001-popcount.patch
Description: Binary data
