Re: [PATCH] doc/queries.sgml: add missing comma

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 06:41:54PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 2:33 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Drew DeVault <sir(at)cmpwn(dot)com> writes:
> > Minor grammatical fix.
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure that reads any better than before.
>
> >     <para>
> > -    Strictly speaking, this process is iteration not recursion, but
> > +    Strictly speaking, this process is iteration, not recursion, but
> >      <literal>RECURSIVE</literal> is the terminology chosen by the SQL
> standards
>
> ... although I think this text is mine, so naturally I'd think
> that.  Anyone else have an opinion?
>
>
>
> If I read that aloud to myself there is a comma after iteration.
>
> That said, given that a comma and a "but" later we use the word "RECURSIVE" the
> clarification that the process isn't recursion seems redundant.  If one knows
> what it means to be "recursive" then they will understand the juxtaposition of
> "iteration" and "recursive" just fine.  If they do not, I don't think adding
> the word "recursion" is going to make much difference.
>
> Thus:
> Strictly speaking, this process is iteration, but <literal>RECURSIVE</literal>
> is the terminology chosen by the SQL standards committee."
>
> Because the above sounds just fine, I'd argue that if one does leave "not
> recursion" it should be set off by a comma.

I went with new wording, which should make this even clearer; patch
attached.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

Indecision is a decision. Inaction is an action. Mark Batterson