[HACKERS] The may/can/might business
3606c3606 errmsg(aggregate function calls cannot be nested))); --- errmsg(aggregate function calls may not be nested))); I don't think that this is an improvement, or even correct English. You have changed a message that states that an action is logically impossible into one that implies we are arbitrarily refusing to let the user do something that *could* be done, if only we'd let him. There is relevant material in the message style guidelines, section 45.3.8: it says that cannot open file %s ... indicates that the functionality of opening the named file does not exist at all in the program, or that it's conceptually impossible. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] The may/can/might business
Tom Lane wrote: 3606c3606 errmsg(aggregate function calls cannot be nested))); --- errmsg(aggregate function calls may not be nested))); I don't think that this is an improvement, or even correct English. You have changed a message that states that an action is logically impossible into one that implies we are arbitrarily refusing to let the user do something that *could* be done, if only we'd let him. There is relevant material in the message style guidelines, section 45.3.8: it says that cannot open file %s ... indicates that the functionality of opening the named file does not exist at all in the program, or that it's conceptually impossible. Uh, I think you might be reading the diff backwards. The current CVS wording is cannot. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] The may/can/might business
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Bruce Momjian wrote: From: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tom Lane wrote: 3606c3606 errmsg(aggregate function calls cannot be nested))); --- errmsg(aggregate function calls may not be nested))); I don't think that this is an improvement, or even correct English. You have changed a message that states that an action is logically impossible into one that implies we are arbitrarily refusing to let the user do something that *could* be done, if only we'd let him. There is relevant material in the message style guidelines, section 45.3.8: it says that cannot open file %s ... indicates that the functionality of opening the named file does not exist at all in the program, or that it's conceptually impossible. Uh, I think you might be reading the diff backwards. The current CVS wording is cannot. No, Bruce, he got it exactly right: cannot indicates, as Tom put it, logical impossibility, whereas may not suggests that something could happen but it's being prevented. His parsing of the english was spot-on. RT -- Richard Troy, Chief Scientist Science Tools Corporation 510-924-1363 or 202-747-1263 [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://ScienceTools.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] The may/can/might business
Richard Troy wrote: On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Bruce Momjian wrote: From: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tom Lane wrote: 3606c3606 errmsg(aggregate function calls cannot be nested))); --- errmsg(aggregate function calls may not be nested))); I don't think that this is an improvement, or even correct English. You have changed a message that states that an action is logically impossible into one that implies we are arbitrarily refusing to let the user do something that *could* be done, if only we'd let him. There is relevant material in the message style guidelines, section 45.3.8: it says that cannot open file %s ... indicates that the functionality of opening the named file does not exist at all in the program, or that it's conceptually impossible. Uh, I think you might be reading the diff backwards. The current CVS wording is cannot. No, Bruce, he got it exactly right: cannot indicates, as Tom put it, logical impossibility, whereas may not suggests that something could happen but it's being prevented. His parsing of the english was spot-on. Right, but the changes was from may not (permission) to cannot (logical impossibility), which I think is what he wanted. Is there an open source grammar award we can win? :-) -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] The may/can/might business
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: 3606c3606 errmsg(aggregate function calls cannot be nested))); --- errmsg(aggregate function calls may not be nested))); I don't think that this is an improvement, or even correct English. Uh, I think you might be reading the diff backwards. The current CVS wording is cannot. Er ... duh. Sorry about that; got confused while merging with some work-in-progress. emily litellaNever mind./emily litella regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
