<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'><pre>Hello all:<br><br>I am working on the documention.<br><br>I have this internal conflict when talking about signatures:
(1)
<code class="chatCode"> pgr_foo( edges_sql, points_sql, start_pid, K,
directed := true, heap_paths := false, driving_side := 'b', details := false)
RETURNS SET OF (seq, path_id, path_seq, node, edge, cost, agg_cost)
</code>VS (2)
<code class="chatCode"> pgr_foo(TEXT edges_sql, TEXT points_sql, BIGINT start_pid, INTEGER K,
BOOLEAN directed := true, BOOLEAN heap_paths := false, CHAR driving_side := 'b', BOOLEAN details := false)
RETURNS SET OF (INTEGER seq, INTEGER path_id, INTEGER path_seq, BIGINT node, BIGINT edge, FLOAT cost, FLOAT agg_cost)<br><br></code>The types of the variables are always explained later.
So my conflict is:<br>The one hat has the types in the signature is almost the correct one, but there are so many parameters that makes it<br>difficult to understand and of course, postgresql types are after the name of the variable, in C/C++ the types are before.
So, bottom line: none of them is correct
(1) looks more readable
(2) is what we have being using
Documenting takes a lot of time, (specially if you want to leave the documentation in such a way that doesn't have to be "fixed" later)<br><br><br>I would really appreciate a comment on this topic.<br><br>Vicky<br></pre> </div></body>
</html>