| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cannot |
| Date: | 2011-10-26 21:58:28 |
| Message-ID: | 13309.1319666308@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Oct 26, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Why? "can not" is perfectly grammatical AFAIK.
> True, but there's a logic issue. Take this example from doc/src/sgml/func.sgml:
>> <para>
>> <function>pg_advisory_xact_lock</> works the same as
>> <function>pg_advisory_lock</>, expect the lock is automatically released
>> at the end of the current transaction and can not be released explicitly.
>> </para>
> I read this as equivalent to "can be not released." Which of course is silly, so as I read it I realize what it means, but it trips up my overly logical brain. It interrupts the flow. There is no such confusion in "cannot be released" and thus no tripping up on meaning.
This particular change seems like an improvement to me, but it's hardly
an adequate argument for a global search-and-replace. There might be
other places where such a change renders things *less* readable.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-10-26 22:05:08 | Re: Cannot |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-10-26 21:20:48 | Re: Cannot |