| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Oleg Sibiryakov <o(dot)sibiryakov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Documentation improvement patch |
| Date: | 2024-09-11 09:53:13 |
| Message-ID: | c027839d-dda0-43ed-b61e-fd0c00e93fc2@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On 10.09.24 15:02, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 10 Sep 2024, at 13:46, Oleg Sibiryakov <o(dot)sibiryakov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>
>> 1. Since we do not want to use <literal> here, I suggest we hyphenate it as "built-in". What's your take on it?
>
> I think that's the right choice given the hyphenation used in the rest of the
> docs. There are a few more places on that same page which should be built-in
> rather than builtin to separate the concept from the parameter value.
I suspect that this would lead to the opposite confusion, people
complaining that the provider is called "builtin" not "built-in".
Arguably, the other providers are also "built in". There are no
user-pluggable providers at this time.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2024-09-11 11:32:06 | Re: Mathematical Functions and Operators |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-09-11 09:47:58 | Re: DocBook 5.2 |