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 <er@xs4all.nl> 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