"David E. Wheeler" <da...@kineticode.com> writes:
> On Oct 26, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Why? "can not" is perfectly grammatical AFAIK.
> True, but there's a logic issue. Take this example from
> doc/src/sgml/func.sgml:
>> <para>
>> <function>pg_advisory_xact_lock</> works the same as
>> <function>pg_advisory_lock</>, expect the lock is automatically released
>> at the end of the current transaction and can not be released explicitly.
>> </para>
> I read this as equivalent to "can be not released." Which of course is silly,
> so as I read it I realize what it means, but it trips up my overly logical
> brain. It interrupts the flow. There is no such confusion in "cannot be
> released" and thus no tripping up on meaning.
This particular change seems like an improvement to me, but it's hardly
an adequate argument for a global search-and-replace. There might be
other places where such a change renders things *less* readable.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
