On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 2:33 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Drew DeVault <s...@cmpwn.com> writes: > > Minor grammatical fix. > > Hmm, I'm not sure that reads any better than before. > > > <para> > > - Strictly speaking, this process is iteration not recursion, but > > + Strictly speaking, this process is iteration, not recursion, but > > <literal>RECURSIVE</literal> is the terminology chosen by the SQL > standards > > ... although I think this text is mine, so naturally I'd think > that. Anyone else have an opinion? > > If I read that aloud to myself there is a comma after iteration.
That said, given that a comma and a "but" later we use the word "RECURSIVE" the clarification that the process isn't recursion seems redundant. If one knows what it means to be "recursive" then they will understand the juxtaposition of "iteration" and "recursive" just fine. If they do not, I don't think adding the word "recursion" is going to make much difference. Thus: Strictly speaking, this process is iteration, but <literal>RECURSIVE</literal> is the terminology chosen by the SQL standards committee." Because the above sounds just fine, I'd argue that if one does leave "not recursion" it should be set off by a comma. David J.
