Re: Cannot

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Cannot
Date: 2011-10-26 21:20:48
Message-ID: 4EA879B0.8050607@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10/26/2011 05:15 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>>> Suggested doc “patch”:
>>>
>>> grep -lri 'can not' doc | xargs perl -i -pe 's/can not/cannot/g'
>> Why? "can not" is perfectly grammatical AFAIK.
> True, but there's a logic issue. Take this example from doc/src/sgml/func.sgml:
>
>> <para>
>> <function>pg_advisory_xact_lock</> works the same as
>> <function>pg_advisory_lock</>, expect the lock is automatically released
>> at the end of the current transaction and can not be released explicitly.
>> </para>
> 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.
>
>

Here's what I would do:

1. s/expect/except that/

2. s/can not be released explicitly/can not be explicitly released/

cheers

andrew

In response to

  • Re: Cannot at 2011-10-26 21:15:30 from David E. Wheeler

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-10-26 21:58:28 Re: Cannot
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2011-10-26 21:15:30 Re: Cannot