Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > So I guess I'm back agreeing with you.  Basically, it seems like we
> > ought to use <literal> if it's being used as a value that the user
> > might want to supply (e.g. "if you set this parameter to 0, then no
> > statements will be logged).  It shouldn't use <literal> if it's just
> > being used as a number (e.g. "this query will return all airplanes
> > with a height of less than 30,000 feet").  The cases I'm unsure about
> > are the ones where we're talking about a return value (e.g. in the
> > event of an error, this function will return -1).
> 
> Robert, based on your logic, the 'return -1' should not be literal
> because no one would type that in.  Unless I hear otherwise I will work
> on a patch to match the rules you outlined above.

FYI, here is what I thought was Robert's conclusion on this.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

• 'literal' for numbers at 2011-02-08 01:58:08 from Bruce Momjian

pgsql-docs by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2011-09-05 16:50:24
	Subject: Re: Building PDFs error: \pdfendlink ended up in different nesting level than \pd
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2011-09-05 15:51:35
	Subject: Use of literal in SGML docs

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2011-09-05 15:56:34
	Subject: Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade problem
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2011-09-05 15:51:35
	Subject: Use of literal in SGML docs

pgsql-committers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2011-09-05 15:59:22
	Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Clean up the #include mess a little.
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2011-09-05 15:51:35
	Subject: Use of literal in SGML docs