| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Is this a typo? |
| Date: | 2025-11-11 04:59:53 |
| Message-ID: | 2118725.1762837193@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I think the incorrect spelling fits the usual pattern (movable,
> valuable, believable, ... with moveable accepted but dying), and it's
> definitely "caching" without the -e-, so it's probably a tempting
> mistake to make, but apparently we're making new words out of bits of
> French with the C preprocessor ## operator and ignoring all that. I
> bet it's "cachable" en français though. My Oxford Concise lists only
> the -e- form, so you have my vote. The online Merriam-Webster (I
> think that's the main reference for US spelling?) doesn't list either
> and suggests I might be looking for cashable.
I tend to look to OneLook Dictionary Search:
Their set of dictionaries has multiple entries for "cacheable"
and only one for "cachable". I don't agree that the latter is
wrong exactly, because some people evidently use it and English
has no Académie Française to legislate what is right; but it's
clearly the less common spelling.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | kenji uno | 2025-11-11 05:11:40 | [PATCH] Fix msvc_gendef.pl for aarch64 (Windows on Arm) |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2025-11-11 04:45:41 | Re: Is this a typo? |