Re: [HACKERS] The may/can/might business

[Tom Lane]

Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 3606c3606
>> > ---
>> >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.

Never mind.

regards, tom lane

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

   http://archives.postgresql.org

Re: [HACKERS] The may/can/might business

[Bruce Momjian]

Richard Troy wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > From: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > 3606c3606
> > >  > > 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

[Richard Troy]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> From: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > 3606c3606
> >  > ---
> > >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

[Bruce Momjian]

Tom Lane wrote:
> 3606c3606
>  ---
> >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

[HACKERS] The may/can/might business

[Tom Lane]

3606c3606
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