From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | npistud(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Math function description issue |
Date: | 2016-06-07 03:06:25 |
Message-ID: | 9158.1465268785@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:40 PM, <npistud(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Please, check ceil, ceiling and floor functions. Example is correct, but
>> description is wrong.
> We could make things indeed more precise. Say for ceil, we use
> "smallest *following* integer", and for floor, "largest *previous*
> integer", and we keep the mention to "not less/greater than argument"
> to show the fact that a numeric already rounded to an integer is equal
> to itself. See the patch attached.
Meh --- I'm not sure that adding previous/following really adds much
clarity. Either with the existing wording or with yours, the statement
is correct as long as you read "smaller" as "closer to minus infinity",
a/k/a "further left on the number line". But if you are thinking it
means "closer to zero", which is what I think the OP is thinking, this
won't do much to disabuse you of your confusion.
We had a similar complaint not long ago, so it does seem that the
wording could stand to be clarified. But I doubt this way fixes it.
Not sure how to do better ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | javier.diaz.soto | 2016-06-07 06:57:51 | Misleading text mesage |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-07 02:56:30 | Re: Typo |