On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 03:27:33PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 03:10:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > > We are inconsistently about adding a comma after e.g. and i.e.: > > > > > This summarizes the recommended behavior: > > > https://jakubmarian.com/comma-after-i-e-and-e-g/ > > > In British English, “i.e.” and “e.g.” are not followed by a comma, so > > > the first example above would be: > > > They sell computer components, e.g. motherboards, graphic > > > cards, CPUs. > > > Virtually all American style guides recommend to follow both “i.e.” and > > > “e.g.” with a comma (just like if “that is” and “for example” were used > > > instead), so the very same sentence in American English would become: > > > > > So, what do we want to do? Leave it unchanged, or pick one of these > > > styles? > > > > I think it's fairly pointless to try to enforce such a thing. > > Even if you made the docs 100% consistent on the issue today, > > they wouldn't stay that way for long, because nobody else is > > really going to care about it. > > > > (FWIW, I generally write a comma myself. But I'm not going > > to cry about text that hasn't got one.) > > I wasn't worried about enforcing going forward, but rather if we should > make what we have now consistent.
I plan to move forward with this, and will backpatch it so later patches are easier to apply. I think we are fine with adding inconsistent usages over time --- this is probably only something we will address in mass every 10 years or so. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
