Re: [doc] fix a potential grammer mistake
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 10:32 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > On 4 Aug 2022, at 00:44, Junwang Zhao wrote: > > > Attachment is a patch with the "just" removed. > > I think this is a change for better, so I've pushed it. Thanks for the > contribution! > > Thanks! Robert Treat https://xzilla.net
Re: [doc] fix a potential grammer mistake
> On 4 Aug 2022, at 00:44, Junwang Zhao wrote: > Attachment is a patch with the "just" removed. I think this is a change for better, so I've pushed it. Thanks for the contribution! -- Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
Re: [doc] fix a potential grammer mistake
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 12:42 AM Robert Treat wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 11:15 AM Junwang Zhao wrote: > > > > Attachment is a corrected version based on Tom's suggestion. > > > > Thanks. > > > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 9:56 PM Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > > Erikjan Rijkers writes: > > > > I don't think these "were"s are wrong but arguably changing them to > > > > "have" helps non-native speakers (like myself), as it doesn't change the > > > > meaning significantly as far as I can see. > > > > > > I think it does --- it changes the meaning from passive to active. > > > I don't necessarily object to rewriting these sentences more broadly, > > > but I don't think "have issued" is the correct phrasing. > > > > > > Possibly "The user issued ..." would work. > > > > > Is there a reason that the first case says "just" issued vs the other > two cases? It seems to me that it should be removed. Attachment is a patch with the "just" removed. Thanks > > Robert Treat > https://xzilla.net -- Regards Junwang Zhao 0001-doc-rewrite-some-comments-to-make-them-more-precise.patch Description: Binary data
Re: [doc] fix a potential grammer mistake
On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 11:15 AM Junwang Zhao wrote: > > Attachment is a corrected version based on Tom's suggestion. > > Thanks. > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 9:56 PM Tom Lane wrote: > > > > Erikjan Rijkers writes: > > > I don't think these "were"s are wrong but arguably changing them to > > > "have" helps non-native speakers (like myself), as it doesn't change the > > > meaning significantly as far as I can see. > > > > I think it does --- it changes the meaning from passive to active. > > I don't necessarily object to rewriting these sentences more broadly, > > but I don't think "have issued" is the correct phrasing. > > > > Possibly "The user issued ..." would work. > > Is there a reason that the first case says "just" issued vs the other two cases? It seems to me that it should be removed. Robert Treat https://xzilla.net
Re: [doc] fix a potential grammer mistake
Attachment is a corrected version based on Tom's suggestion. Thanks. On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 9:56 PM Tom Lane wrote: > > Erikjan Rijkers writes: > > I don't think these "were"s are wrong but arguably changing them to > > "have" helps non-native speakers (like myself), as it doesn't change the > > meaning significantly as far as I can see. > > I think it does --- it changes the meaning from passive to active. > I don't necessarily object to rewriting these sentences more broadly, > but I don't think "have issued" is the correct phrasing. > > Possibly "The user issued ..." would work. > > regards, tom lane -- Regards Junwang Zhao 0001-doc-rewrite-some-comments-to-make-them-more-precise.patch Description: Binary data
Re: [doc] fix a potential grammer mistake
Erikjan Rijkers writes: > I don't think these "were"s are wrong but arguably changing them to > "have" helps non-native speakers (like myself), as it doesn't change the > meaning significantly as far as I can see. I think it does --- it changes the meaning from passive to active. I don't necessarily object to rewriting these sentences more broadly, but I don't think "have issued" is the correct phrasing. Possibly "The user issued ..." would work. regards, tom lane
Re: [doc] fix a potential grammer mistake
yeah, not a grammar mistake at all, "were" should be used here, thanks for pointing that out ;) On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 4:27 PM Erikjan Rijkers wrote: > > Op 03-08-2022 om 10:10 schreef Junwang Zhao: > > I think in the following sentence, were should be replaced with have, > > what do you think? > > > > ``` > > /* > > -* We were just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a > > transaction block. > > +* We have just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a > > transaction block. > > * Start a subtransaction. (DefineSavepoint > > already did > > * PushTransaction, so as to have someplace to > > put the SUBBEGIN > > * state.) > > ``` > > I don't think these "were"s are wrong but arguably changing them to > "have" helps non-native speakers (like myself), as it doesn't change the > meaning significantly as far as I can see. > > 'we were issued' does reflect the perspective of the receiving code a > bit better. > > > Erik > -- Regards Junwang Zhao
Re: [doc] fix a potential grammer mistake
On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 4:23 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > > On 3 Aug 2022, at 10:10, Junwang Zhao wrote: > > > > I think in the following sentence, were should be replaced with have, > > what do you think? > > > > ``` > >/* > > -* We were just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a > > transaction block. > > +* We have just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a > > transaction block. > > * Start a subtransaction. (DefineSavepoint already > > did > > * PushTransaction, so as to have someplace to > > put the SUBBEGIN > > * state.) > > ``` > > I'm not so sure. If I read this right the intent of the sentence is to convey > that the user has issued a SAVEPOINT to the backend, not the backend itself. > I > think the current wording is the correct one. > Got it, using `were` here means the backend is the receiver of the action, not the sender. That makes sense, thanks a lot. > -- > Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/ > -- Regards Junwang Zhao
Re: [doc] fix a potential grammer mistake
Op 03-08-2022 om 10:10 schreef Junwang Zhao: I think in the following sentence, were should be replaced with have, what do you think? ``` /* -* We were just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a transaction block. +* We have just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a transaction block. * Start a subtransaction. (DefineSavepoint already did * PushTransaction, so as to have someplace to put the SUBBEGIN * state.) ``` I don't think these "were"s are wrong but arguably changing them to "have" helps non-native speakers (like myself), as it doesn't change the meaning significantly as far as I can see. 'we were issued' does reflect the perspective of the receiving code a bit better. Erik
Re: [doc] fix a potential grammer mistake
> On 3 Aug 2022, at 10:10, Junwang Zhao wrote: > > I think in the following sentence, were should be replaced with have, > what do you think? > > ``` >/* > -* We were just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a > transaction block. > +* We have just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a > transaction block. > * Start a subtransaction. (DefineSavepoint already > did > * PushTransaction, so as to have someplace to > put the SUBBEGIN > * state.) > ``` I'm not so sure. If I read this right the intent of the sentence is to convey that the user has issued a SAVEPOINT to the backend, not the backend itself. I think the current wording is the correct one. -- Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
[doc] fix a potential grammer mistake
I think in the following sentence, were should be replaced with have, what do you think? ``` /* -* We were just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a transaction block. +* We have just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a transaction block. * Start a subtransaction. (DefineSavepoint already did * PushTransaction, so as to have someplace to put the SUBBEGIN * state.) ``` -- Regards Junwang Zhao 0001-doc-fix-a-potential-grammer-mistake.patch Description: Binary data
