Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > Why do you keep insisting on changing case where I've written "which" > to instead say "that" in situations where AFAIK either is perfectly > correct? I find such changes at best neutral, and in some cases > worse.
What I was taught in school was that "that" introduces a restrictive clause, i.e. one that limits the membership of whatever group was just mentioned, while "which" introduces a descriptive clause, i.e. one that just provides more information about the group. So for example Functions that return a pass-by-reference type must do X. is correct, while Functions, which return a pass-by-reference type, must do X. carries an implication that *all* functions in the system return pass-by-reference types. Even if you think that that's obviously silly, it may confuse readers who are accustomed to this distinction being drawn. On the other hand, this is fine: Functions that return text, which is a pass-by-reference type, must do X. I've made the point more obvious in the above by setting off descriptive clauses with commas, which is a common thing to do. But the punctuation is optional. I realize that this is nitpickery, and wouldn't usually bother about the distinction in, say, code comments. But we are striving to be somewhat formal in the user-facing documentation, no? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers