Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > > This needs some revisions.  The table needs to be mentioned somewhere in 
> > > the
> > > text, so the reader knows when or why to refer to it.  Also, the cryptic
> > > abbreviations need to be expanded or explained.  And then the concept of
> > > lock "compatibility", as the table puts it, is not used anywhere else in 
> > > the
> > > documentation.  The table should be put in terms of conflicts instead.
> > >
> >
> > Another version with expanded abbreviations is
> >, if remove
> >
> > While compatibility matrix is a commonly accepted termin, I agree, that
> > using conficts would be better in context of our docs.
> How about changing 'current lock mode' to 'opposing lock mode'?
> 'current' kind of suggests that you are escalating your own lock.

Not sure how you can say requested and opposing --- they seems odd
together.  I am still open to new working though:

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to