> 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.
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
But that's OK. My goal in posting these is to encourage people to consider
>> 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
> 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 ), 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.
>> 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
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
> 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!
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
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
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: