yeah, not a grammar mistake at all, "were" should be used here, thanks for pointing that out ;)
On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 4:27 PM Erikjan Rijkers <e...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > Op 03-08-2022 om 10:10 schreef Junwang Zhao: > > I think in the following sentence, were should be replaced with have, > > what do you think? > > > > ``` > > /* > > - * We were just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a > > transaction block. > > + * We have just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a > > transaction block. > > * Start a subtransaction. (DefineSavepoint > > already did > > * PushTransaction, so as to have someplace to > > put the SUBBEGIN > > * state.) > > ``` > > I don't think these "were"s are wrong but arguably changing them to > "have" helps non-native speakers (like myself), as it doesn't change the > meaning significantly as far as I can see. > > 'we were issued' does reflect the perspective of the receiving code a > bit better. > > > Erik > -- Regards Junwang Zhao