Re: Fixed a typo in comment in compress_lz4.c

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fixed a typo in comment in compress_lz4.c
Date: 2025-10-14 00:12:11
Message-ID: 842688.1760400731@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Look at this instance. The comment says:

> * LZ4 equivalent to feof() or gzeof(). Return true iff there is no
> * more buffered data and the end of the input file has been reached.

> It just states when the function should return true. In this case, why “if” is not good enough and “if and only if” is needed?

Saying "if" here wouldn't fully specify the behavior. As an example,
returning constant-true would formally satisfy such a definition.
Yeah, most people would understand what is meant, but if you want
to be precise then you must make clear that the function doesn't
return true when the condition is not satisfied.

I believe that the abbreviation "iff" arose among mathematicians,
who are much more likely to be concerned about such precision than
many of us.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chao Li 2025-10-14 00:27:27 Re: Fixed a typo in comment in compress_lz4.c
Previous Message Chao Li 2025-10-14 00:09:56 Re: [PING] [PATCH v2] parallel pg_restore: avoid disk seeks when jumping short distance forward