Typo
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/history.html Description: Hi Folks, thank you for maintaining this great technical resource, which I've only recently started to use. There appears to be a typo, here: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/history.html#:~:text=Postgres95%20code%20was%20completely%20ANSI%20C. A word or two should be added between 'completely' and 'ANSI C', such as 're-written in', or 're-coded using', or some such. Thanks, Peter Spung | Raleigh, NC, USA
Re: Typo
On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 08:52:25PM +, PG Doc comments form wrote: > There appears to be a typo, here: > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/history.html#:~:text=Postgres95%20code%20was%20completely%20ANSI%20C. > A word or two should be added between 'completely' and 'ANSI C', such as > 're-written in', or 're-coded using', or some such. This is the current sentence, and it sounds kind of OK to me, FWIW: "Postgres95 code was completely ANSI C and trimmed in size by 25%. -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Typo
On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 3:32 PM Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 08:52:25PM +, PG Doc comments form wrote: > > There appears to be a typo, here: > > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/history.html#:~:text=Postgres95%20code%20was%20completely%20ANSI%20C > . > > A word or two should be added between 'completely' and 'ANSI C', such as > > 're-written in', or 're-coded using', or some such. > > This is the current sentence, and it sounds kind of OK to me, FWIW: > "Postgres95 code was completely ANSI C and trimmed in size by 25%. > > I agree with the OP, that is missing something. Maybe: Between the 4.2 release and the release of Postgres95 the code was made to completely adhere to ANSI C and the size was reduced by 25%. David J.
Re: Typo
On Wed, 2023-05-24 at 07:32 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 08:52:25PM +, PG Doc comments form wrote: > > There appears to be a typo, here: > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/history.html#:~:text=Postgres95%20code%20was%20completely%20ANSI%20C. > > A word or two should be added between 'completely' and 'ANSI C', such as > > 're-written in', or 're-coded using', or some such. > > This is the current sentence, and it sounds kind of OK to me, FWIW: > "Postgres95 code was completely ANSI C and trimmed in size by 25%. That uses "ANSI C" as an adjective, which I think is sloppy wording (even though English is somewhat relaxed about the distinction between classes of words). How about: "... was written completely in ANSI C ..." Yours, Laurenz Albe
Re: Typo
Laurenz Albe writes: > On Wed, 2023-05-24 at 07:32 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> This is the current sentence, and it sounds kind of OK to me, FWIW: >> "Postgres95 code was completely ANSI C and trimmed in size by 25%. > That uses "ANSI C" as an adjective, which I think is sloppy wording > (even though English is somewhat relaxed about the distinction between > classes of words). Yeah, it's not great English, but it's not awful English either; just a rather telegraphic (abbreviated) style. Here's the thing: at this point, this documentation is itself a historical artifact. git excavation dates the current wording to 8baa8fcf4 of 1999-06-21, and that was just a small adjustment of c8cfb0cea of 1998-03-01, and it seems likely that that was pulled verbatim from some older source. So I'm disinclined to change it on grounds of "I think the grammar is a bit shaky". It is what it is. regards, tom lane
Re: Typo
On Tuesday, May 23, 2023, Tom Lane wrote: > Laurenz Albe writes: > > On Wed, 2023-05-24 at 07:32 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> This is the current sentence, and it sounds kind of OK to me, FWIW: > >> "Postgres95 code was completely ANSI C and trimmed in size by 25%. > > > That uses "ANSI C" as an adjective, which I think is sloppy wording > > (even though English is somewhat relaxed about the distinction between > > classes of words). > > Yeah, it's not great English, but it's not awful English either; > just a rather telegraphic (abbreviated) style. > > Here's the thing: at this point, this documentation is itself a > historical artifact. git excavation dates the current wording to > 8baa8fcf4 of 1999-06-21, and that was just a small adjustment of > c8cfb0cea of 1998-03-01, and it seems likely that that was pulled > verbatim from some older source. > > So I'm disinclined to change it on grounds of "I think the grammar > is a bit shaky". It is what it is. > > > Agreed. Besides, after a couple of more passes it grew on me, once I filled in the missing “compared to what” sufficiently. David J.
