Re: [HACKERS] Fix typos in comments

[Robert Haas]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Oskari Saarenmaa  wrote:
> Attached a patch to fix a bunch of typos in comments.

Committed.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] fix typos in comments

[Tom Lane]

Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
 On 2015-04-26 19:13:42 +0400, Dmitriy Olshevskiy wrote:
 - *therefor it is up to the calling routine to
 + *therefore it is up to the calling routine to

 I think both are actually legal? Yes therefore is more common, but
 still.

Hm.  My dictionary says that therefor is archaic, but to my eye it
looks just wrong.  Certainly no modern writer would spell it like that.

 Nope. Iff means if and only if.

Right, iff is intentional here (and in many other places).  We've
discussed that before.

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] fix typos in comments

[Andres Freund]

Hi,

Man, whoever invented these an vs. a rules... But then this patch made
me lookup the rules ;)

On 2015-04-26 19:13:42 +0400, Dmitriy Olshevskiy wrote:

 diff --git a/src/backend/optimizer/geqo/geqo_erx.c 
 b/src/backend/optimizer/geqo/geqo_erx.c
 index 69ac077..1a43ab7 100644
 --- a/src/backend/optimizer/geqo/geqo_erx.c
 +++ b/src/backend/optimizer/geqo/geqo_erx.c
 @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ gimme_edge_table(PlannerInfo *root, Gene *tour1, Gene 
 *tour2,
   * registers edge from city1 to city2 in input edge table
   *
   * no assumptions about directionality are made;
 - * therefor it is up to the calling routine to
 + * therefore it is up to the calling routine to
   * call gimme_edge twice to make a bi-directional edge
   * between city1 and city2;
   * uni-directional edges are possible as well (just call
 gimme_edge

I think both are actually legal? Yes therefore is more common, but
still.

I left this out.

 diff --git a/src/include/access/attnum.h b/src/include/access/attnum.h
 index 82e811d..300b682 100644
 --- a/src/include/access/attnum.h
 +++ b/src/include/access/attnum.h
 @@ -29,14 +29,14 @@ typedef int16 AttrNumber;
   */
  /*
   * AttributeNumberIsValid
 - *   True iff the attribute number is valid.
 + *   True if the attribute number is valid.
   */
  #define AttributeNumberIsValid(attributeNumber) \
   ((bool) ((attributeNumber) != InvalidAttrNumber))
  
  /*
   * AttrNumberIsForUserDefinedAttr
 - *   True iff the attribute number corresponds to an user defined 
 attribute.
 + *   True if the attribute number corresponds to a user defined 
 attribute.
   */

Nope. Iff means if and only if.

 diff --git a/src/include/storage/s_lock.h b/src/include/storage/s_lock.h
 index f4dc0db..b131412 100644
 --- a/src/include/storage/s_lock.h
 +++ b/src/include/storage/s_lock.h
 @@ -356,8 +356,8 @@ tas(volatile slock_t *lock)
  /*
   * Solaris has always run sparc processors in TSO (total store) mode, but
   * linux didn't use to and the *BSDs still don't. So, be careful about
 - * acquire/release semantics. The CPU will treat superflous membars as NOPs,
 - * so it's just code space.
 + * acquire/release semantics. The CPU will treat superfluous membars as 
 + * NOPs, so it's just code space.
   */
  #define HAS_TEST_AND_SET

superflous, err superfluous, trailing space removed.

I've pushed the rest. Thanks!

Greetings,

Andres Freund


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] fix typos in comments

[Andres Freund]

On 2015-04-26 12:53:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
 Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
  On 2015-04-26 19:13:42 +0400, Dmitriy Olshevskiy wrote:
  - *  therefor it is up to the calling routine to
  + *  therefore it is up to the calling routine to
 
  I think both are actually legal? Yes therefore is more common, but
  still.
 
 Hm.  My dictionary says that therefor is archaic, but to my eye it
 looks just wrong.  Certainly no modern writer would spell it like that.

Mine said that it's still common in some circles, particularly the law,
so I thought I'd leave it alone.  I don't have that much of a 'feeling'
for english, strangely enough.

Greetings,

Andres Freund


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] fix typos in comments

[Tom Lane]

Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
 On 2015-04-26 12:53:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
 Hm.  My dictionary says that therefor is archaic, but to my eye it
 looks just wrong.  Certainly no modern writer would spell it like that.

 Mine said that it's still common in some circles, particularly the law,
 so I thought I'd leave it alone.  I don't have that much of a 'feeling'
 for english, strangely enough.

Well, a quick grep says that our source tree contains 2 occurrences of
therefor (in pqcomm.c and geqo_erx.c), versus 700+ occurrences of
therefore.  So I'd be inclined to standardize on the latter.

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] fix typos in comments

[Andres Freund]

On 2015-04-26 13:03:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
 Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
  On 2015-04-26 12:53:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
  Hm.  My dictionary says that therefor is archaic, but to my eye it
  looks just wrong.  Certainly no modern writer would spell it like that.
 
  Mine said that it's still common in some circles, particularly the law,
  so I thought I'd leave it alone.  I don't have that much of a 'feeling'
  for english, strangely enough.
 
 Well, a quick grep says that our source tree contains 2 occurrences of
 therefor (in pqcomm.c and geqo_erx.c), versus 700+ occurrences of
 therefore.  So I'd be inclined to standardize on the latter.

Done.

Greetings,

Andres Freund


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers