On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 2:45 AM, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: >> After looking at the generated html version, I find that the "1/param" and >> "2/param" formula are very simple and pretty easy to read, and they would >> not be really enhanced with additional spacing. >> >> ISTM that adaptative spacing (no spacing for level 1 operations, some for >> higher level) is a good approach for readability, ie: >> >> f(i) - f(i+1) >> ^ no spacing here >> ^ some spacing here >> >> So I would suggest to keep the submitted version, unless this is a blocker. > > Well, I think with the ".0" version it looks more like floating-point > math, and I like the extra white-space. But I'm happy to hear other > opinions.
- defined as <literal>(max + min) / 2.0</>, then value <replaceable>i</>
+ defined as <literal>(max+min)/2</>, with
This thing reminds me a bit of the little of TeX I know, when writing
things like "\sqrt{1-e^2}" spaces would be printed in the converted
html, and as that's floating arythmetic, we should have as well a .0.
So I would agree on both points with Robert.
I have looked for now at the first patch and finished with the
attached while looking at it. Perhaps a committer could look already
at that?
I am still looking at the 2nd patch in more details...
--
Michael
0001-Make-pgbench-documentation-more-precise-for-function.patch
Description: binary/octet-stream
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
