Sep 26, 2023 1:10:55 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > "Karl O. Pinc" <k...@karlpinc.com> writes: >> For the last hunk you'd change around "anything". Write: >> "... it will be truncated to less than NAMEDATALEN characters and >> the bytes of the string which are not printable ASCII characters ...". > >> Notice that I have also changed "that" to "which" just above. >> I _think_ this is better English. > > No, I'm pretty sure you're mistaken. It's been a long time since > high school English, but the way I think this works is that "that" > introduces a restrictive clause, which narrows the scope of what > you are saying. That is, you say "that" when you want to talk > about only the bytes of the string that aren't ASCII. But "which" > introduces a non-restrictive clause that adds information or > commentary. If you say "bytes of the string which are not ASCII", > you are effectively making a side assertion that no byte of the > string is ASCII. Which is not the meaning you want here.
Makes sense to me. "That" it is. Thanks for the help. I never would have figured that out.