From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dmitriy Olshevskiy <olshevskiy87(at)bk(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: fix typos in comments |
Date: | 2015-04-26 16:58:01 |
Message-ID: | 20150426165801.GD18789@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-04-26 12:53:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2015-04-26 19:13:42 +0400, Dmitriy Olshevskiy wrote:
> >> - * therefor it is up to the calling routine to
> >> + * therefore it is up to the calling routine to
>
> > I think both are actually legal? Yes therefore is more common, but
> > still.
>
> Hm. My dictionary says that "therefor" is archaic, but to my eye it
> looks just wrong. Certainly no modern writer would spell it like that.
Mine said that it's still common in some circles, particularly the law,
so I thought I'd leave it alone. I don't have that much of a 'feeling'
for english, strangely enough.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-04-26 17:03:52 | Re: fix typos in comments |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-04-26 16:53:30 | Re: fix typos in comments |