| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Dmitriy Olshevskiy <olshevskiy87(at)bk(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: fix typos in comments |
| Date: | 2015-04-26 17:03:52 |
| Message-ID: | 34789.1430067832@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-04-26 17:08:05 | Re: fix typos in comments |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-04-26 16:58:01 | Re: fix typos in comments |