From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Little cleanup of ShmemInit function names |
Date: | 2024-08-28 19:15:02 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYgjFreVtAN+du0EP8gsB98HkAnTCf4=9g_G_PY4HYq2Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 2:41 PM Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> wrote:
> Not sure if it is correct or not but from some googling it seems to be a
> direct translation of "quod vide". I think "for which, see" would likely
> be more proper English but it is not my native language and we use
> "which see" elsewhere so we might as well be consistent and use "which see".
If somebody wrote "for which, see" in a patch I was reviewing, I would
definitely complain about it.
I wouldn't complain about "which see", but that's mostly because I
know Tom likes the expression. As a native English speaker, it sounds
basically grammatical to me, but it's an extremely uncommon usage. I
prefer to phrase things in ways that are closer to how people actually
talk, partly because I know that we do have many people working on the
project who are not native speakers of English, and are thus more
likely to be tripped up by obscure usages.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2024-08-28 19:23:52 | Re: allowing extensions to control planner behavior |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-08-28 19:07:06 | Re: Thread-safe nl_langinfo() and localeconv() |