From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dmitriy Olshevskiy <olshevskiy87(at)bk(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: fix typos in comments |
Date: | 2015-04-26 17:08:05 |
Message-ID: | 20150426170805.GE18789@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-04-26 13:03:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2015-04-26 12:53:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hm. My dictionary says that "therefor" is archaic, but to my eye it
> >> looks just wrong. Certainly no modern writer would spell it like that.
>
> > Mine said that it's still common in some circles, particularly the law,
> > so I thought I'd leave it alone. I don't have that much of a 'feeling'
> > for english, strangely enough.
>
> Well, a quick grep says that our source tree contains 2 occurrences of
> "therefor" (in pqcomm.c and geqo_erx.c), versus 700+ occurrences of
> "therefore". So I'd be inclined to standardize on the latter.
Done.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-04-26 17:54:38 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-04-26 17:03:52 | Re: fix typos in comments |