"David E. Wheeler" <da...@kineticode.com> writes: > On Oct 26, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> Why? "can not" is perfectly grammatical AFAIK.
> True, but there's a logic issue. Take this example from > doc/src/sgml/func.sgml: >> <para> >> <function>pg_advisory_xact_lock</> works the same as >> <function>pg_advisory_lock</>, expect the lock is automatically released >> at the end of the current transaction and can not be released explicitly. >> </para> > I read this as equivalent to "can be not released." Which of course is silly, > so as I read it I realize what it means, but it trips up my overly logical > brain. It interrupts the flow. There is no such confusion in "cannot be > released" and thus no tripping up on meaning. This particular change seems like an improvement to me, but it's hardly an adequate argument for a global search-and-replace. There might be other places where such a change renders things *less* readable. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers