Heikki wrote: > I pushed most of these. Except for the below: > optimisation -> optimization et al.
> Most of our code is written with the American spelling, > but the British spelling isn't wrong, > so I don't want to go around changing them all. Sure As you'll see, my approach is to aim for consistency. If you used en-GB 99% of the time, I'd have offered a change to enforce that. I have a personal preference, but there's no obligation, and I understand the potential costs churn entails (I see you backported to branches). > NUL-terminated -> NULL-terminated > When we're talking about NUL-terminated strings, > NUL refers to the NUL ASCII character. NULL usually refers to a NULL pointer. This wasn't even in my original set (i.e. The dictionary I'm using didn't consider NUL to be misspelled). I ran across it while splitting comments out per Andres and figured I'd offer it as well. > We're probably not consistent about this, Hrm, I was going to say "that's correct, you aren't", but rereading, I realize that I'd have to review every instance in order to prove to myself that statement. I could make the weaker argument that "nul-terminated" should be changed to either NUL-terminated or null-terminated . My general approach is to only make changes when I can detect an inconsistency. And I generally tend toward "majority rule". Here, I think the corpus has 4 spellings, and it sounds like it should only have two, but probably (NUL- and null-) not the two I picked (NULL- and null-). > but in this context, NUL-terminated isn't wrong, so let's leave them as they > are. But that's OK. My goal in posting these is to encourage people to consider their code. >> Ooops -> Oops > "Oops" is more idiomatic, but this doesn't really seem worth changing. Technically oops is in dictionaries whereas the other isn't, but I understood the intent. > Maybe "Ooops" indicates a slightly bigger mistake than "oops" :-) That seemed like the intent. It's certainly not unreasonable to retain it. It's also why I generally offer a queue, so people can reject families of changes. >> re-entrancy -> reentrancy > Googling around, I can see both spellings being used. Both are used, but reentrancy is in most dictionaries (and encyclopedias) and is the form that's used in instruction (certainly it was when I studied in university, and it isn't likely to regress). It's akin to email vs e-mail. Once the dashless form becomes accepted (within a domain [1]), it's the correct form, and the other was merely transitional. > "Re-entrancy" actually feels more natural to me, although I'm not sure which > is more correct. > Let's leave them as they are. Sure >> passthru -> passthrough > "Passthrough" is clearly the correct spelling (or "pass-through"?), The former is also present in the codebase. (I didn't look for the latter, for the same reason as the previous note.) > but "passthru" seems OK in the context, as an informal shorthand. My goal is consistency. If you always spell a concept a single way, then grepping for that concept is easier and more reliable. I personally recognize quite a few flavors, because they're usable for talking to Coverity / Purify. >> - * Temporay we use TSLexeme.flags for inner use... >> + * Temporary we use TSLexeme.flags for inner use... > Looking at the code real quick, I couldn't understand the original meaning of this. Is it: > * DT_USEASIS is a temporary value we use for something. For what? > * DT_USEASIS is used temporarily for something. > Does this mean, "temporarily" until we get around to write the code > differently, or does > it happen temporarily at runtime, or what? > Just fixing the typo doesn't help much here, > and I'm not sure if it should be "temporary" or "temporarily" anyway. Apparently I didn't look at this one much at all. I believe temporarily is the intended word (fwiw, I originally mis-corrected directly as directory, that I did spot before submitting). And probably as a runtime concept. But I'm not volunteering to fix all comments in the project ;-). After spelling fixes, I'm more likely to try actual bugs / usability issues. I have a specific bug which bit me, but fixing that would require more effort than a spelling pass and more cooperation. I tend to do a spelling pass to determine if the more expensive activity is viable. So far, the project is welcoming :-) so, perhaps I'll manage to write the real fix... > I wasn't sure if this changes the meaning of the comment slightly. > An "UPDATE" in all-caps refers to an UPDATE statement, > is that what's meant here? Or just updating a tuple, > i.e. should this rather be "skip updating of the tuple" or "skip update of > tuple"? I'm not certain. I do understand that capital UPDATE is special. This one people more familiar with the project will have to resolve. Fwiw, if it's the former, you could omit the "of". > This "postsql" refers to the SQL dialect of PostgreSQL, I had to look up the other dialect from that line to decide it wasn't a spelling error. > rather than PostgreSQL the project. > I don't remember seeing it called "postsql" anywhere else, though. Nothing within the corpus I was changing shared that spelling, otherwise it too would have been changed :) Oddly, this specific thing feels like a Deja-vu. I wonder if I started a spelling fix series for Postgres a decade ago or something... > We hardly care about what was an error in postqual anyway, > though, so perhaps this should be rewritten into something else entirely, > like "This is not allowed by the SQL standard, but ok on PostgreSQL" > (assuming that's correct, I'm not 100% sure). > Or just leave it alone. I'd encourage you to find something that's meaningful and correct. > Thanks for the fixes! You're welcome. Thanks for the quick handling. Some projects take months. Or never respond. > I was particularly impressed that you caught the typo in Marcel Kornacker's > surname. My tools identify both spellings as incorrect (and all possibly misspelled words are listed alphabetically), which means that I have the opportunity to choose a correct spelling -- generally I'll Google if I'm concerned because there is insufficient preference within a corpus. Did you want me to submit emails for the remaining portions from https://github.com/jsoref/postgres/commits/spelling [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reentrant -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
