Re: [doc] fix a potential grammer mistake

yeah, not a grammar mistake at all, "were" should be used here, thanks
for pointing that out ;)

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 4:27 PM Erikjan Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> wrote:
>
> Op 03-08-2022 om 10:10 schreef Junwang Zhao:
> > I think in the following sentence, were should be replaced with have,
> > what do you think?
> >
> > ```
> > /*
> > - * We were just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a
> > transaction block.
> > + * We have just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a
> > transaction block.
> > * Start a subtransaction. (DefineSavepoint already did
> > * PushTransaction, so as to have someplace to
> > put the SUBBEGIN
> > * state.)
> > ```
>
> I don't think these "were"s are wrong but arguably changing them to
> "have" helps non-native speakers (like myself), as it doesn't change the
> meaning significantly as far as I can see.
>
> 'we were issued' does reflect the perspective of the receiving code a
> bit better.
>
>
> Erik
>

--
Regards
Junwang Zhao