Re: Replace l337sp34k in comments.

From: Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz>
To: Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Replace l337sp34k in comments.
Date: 2021-07-30 21:15:59
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 30/07/21 8:05 pm, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 22:46, Gavin Flower
> <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> wrote:
>> Though in code, possibly it would be better to just use 'up-to-date' in
>> code for consistency and to make the it easier to grep?
> If it's causing an issue, perhaps using a less syntactically
> problematic synonym like "current" might be better?
> :)
> Geoff

On thinking further...

The word 'current' means different things in different contexts. If I
refer to my current O/S it means the one I'm using now, but it may not
be current.  The second use of 'current' is the meaning you are thinking
of, but the first is not. Since people reading documented code are
focused on understanding technical aspects, they may miss this subtlety.

I'm aware that standardisation may meet with some resistance, but being
consistent might reduce the conceptual impedance when reading the code. 
I'm just trying to reduce the potential for confusion.


In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2021-07-30 21:18:02 Re: alter table set TABLE ACCESS METHOD
Previous Message Andres Freund 2021-07-30 21:14:07 Re: [PATCH] Hooks at XactCommand level