Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Copy-editing for contrib/pg_visibility documentation.
От | Kevin Grittner |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Copy-editing for contrib/pg_visibility documentation. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CACjxUsN4qcpqivc1e+aJr6K_ws-J3BP_-sCGCABBQgaswqxY=A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Copy-editing for contrib/pg_visibility documentation. (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Copy-editing for
contrib/pg_visibility documentation.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> Sure, I'm not arguing with trying to be formal. The grammatical rule >> that you're describing doesn't exist for me, though. I believe that >> "that" can only introduce a restrictive clause, whereas "which" can >> introduce either a descriptive or a restrictive clause. > > Yeah, as was noted downthread, that's the British view of it. Even in the Midwest I have frequently heard people arguing to avoid "that" in most situations where either could work. I ran into one professor who went to what I considered silly lengths to expurgate the word from documents. > Anyway, we've probably beaten this horse to death. Just to be sure of that, I'll cite the Chicago Manual of Style (my preferred style guide), which seems to chart a course somewhere in the middle: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Whichvs.That.html -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: