| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cannot |
| Date: | 2011-10-26 22:05:08 |
| Message-ID: | 13D9C88D-7A78-4586-8A46-C92ECF335BF9@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Oct 26, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
The patch is actually quite modest; there are only a few instances of "can not". Attached.
Best,
David
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| cannot.patch | application/octet-stream | 4.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-10-26 23:29:49 | Re: Hot Backup with rsync fails at pg_clog if under load |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-26 21:58:28 | Re: Cannot |