| From: | Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <adsmail(at)wars-nicht(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: iff -> if |
| Date: | 2014-04-16 01:16:11 |
| Message-ID: | 534DD9DB.7090507@pinpointresearch.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/15/2014 05:36 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 04/15/2014 06:26 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 15 April 2014 23:19, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
>> <adsmail(at)wars-nicht(dot)de> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> stumbled over a number of "iff" in the source where "if" is meant -
>>> not sure
>>> what the real story behind this is, but attached is a patch to fix
>>> the about
>>> 80 occurrences.
>>>
>>> This only appears in comments, not in any code path.
>> Yeah, apparently those are intentional, and mean "if and only if"
>> (i.e. <=>)
>>
>
> This is a reasonably common idiom, or used to be.
If it has fallen into disuse the news has failed to reach me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if
http://www.mathwords.com/i/if_and_only_if.htm
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Iff.html
...
Cheers,
Steve
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-04-16 01:35:11 | Re: Patch: iff -> if |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-04-16 00:36:50 | Re: Patch: iff -> if |