Re: Doc patch "only relevant" -> "relevant only"

From: Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: "Karl O(dot) Pinc" <kop(at)meme(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Doc patch "only relevant" -> "relevant only"
Date: 2012-10-17 17:19:47
Message-ID: 20121017171946.GB17342@toroid.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At 2012-10-17 09:19:58 -0400, andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net wrote:
>
> This doesn't appear to correct any ambiguity, nor any grammatical
> error.

FWIW, it's quite standard and uncontroversial "good writing" advice to
push "only" as far right as it can go. It does correct an ambiguity,
but in this case the ambiguity is silly and harmless, so fixing it
seems like nitpicking when you read the patch.

-- Abhijit

P.S. I would fix it anyway.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2012-10-17 17:22:03 Re: Deprecating RULES
Previous Message Greg Stark 2012-10-17 17:17:29 Re: [RFC] CREATE QUEUE (log-only table) for londiste/pgQ ccompatibility