From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jürgen Purtz <juergen(at)purtz(dot)de>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Math function description issue |
Date: | 2016-06-07 23:11:48 |
Message-ID: | 20160607231148.GA512061@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Tom Lane wrote:
> =?UTF-8?Q?J=c3=bcrgen_Purtz?= <juergen(at)purtz(dot)de> writes:
> > a) In my opinion this wording is easier to understand because it avoids
> > the negation via "not less".
>
> That's a fair point.
>
> The other difference is least/greatest versus smallest/largest. I'm not
> sure if using least/greatest would help the people who misunderstand
> "smallest" as "closest to zero". They might; but being less-common words,
> they might also confuse people whose native language isn't English.
> Anyone have an opinion about which to use?
As a non-native, the use of "least/greatest" makes it more explicit that
it refers to arithmetic inequality, whereas "smallest" sounds like it
may be related to absolute value comparisons. It's true that
least/greatest are less common words, but that makes it more likely that
they would be looked up in a dictionary, whereas with smallest/largest
people might stick to intuitive knowledge and get them wrong.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dean Rasheed | 2016-06-08 05:20:42 | Re: Math function description issue |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-07 20:11:13 | Re: Math function description issue |