Richard Troy wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > 3606c3606
> > > < errmsg("aggregate function calls cannot be nested")));
> > > ---
> > > > errmsg("aggregate function calls may not be nested")));
> > >
> > > I don't think that this is an improvement, or even correct English.
> > >
> > > You have changed a message that states that an action is logically
> > > impossible into one that implies we are arbitrarily refusing to let
> > > the user do something that *could* be done, if only we'd let him.
> > >
> > > There is relevant material in the message style guidelines, section
> > > 45.3.8: it says that "cannot open file "%s" ... indicates that the
> > > functionality of opening the named file does not exist at all in the
> > > program, or that it's conceptually impossible."
> > Uh, I think you might be reading the diff backwards. The current CVS
> > wording is "cannot".
> No, Bruce, he got it exactly right: "cannot" indicates, as Tom put it,
> "logical impossibility," whereas "may not" suggests that something could
> happen but it's being prevented. His parsing of the english was spot-on.
Right, but the changes was from "may not" (permission) to "cannot"
(logical impossibility), which I think is what he wanted.
Is there an open source grammar award we can win? :-)
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-02-01 21:04:33|
|Subject: Re: The may/can/might business |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2007-02-01 20:43:04|
|Subject: Re: The may/can/might business|