"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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to