On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
>> On 05/12/2016 05:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I agree. If someone were to hold my feet to the fire about that,
>>> I'd vote for taking out the ANALYSE spelling rather than documenting
>>> it. But I'd rather leave it alone, since no doubt some of the British
>>> contingent are used to being able to spell it that way, even if the
>>> docs don't say that they can.
>>
>> I was involved in a project whereby the client had written an app to
>> filter/control what could be executed by their developers (via a web
>> interface), and since ANALYSE was undocumented they missed it. I was
>> aware of it and pointed it out during an audit of their app.
>>
>> Personally I would vote to either document it or rip it out, but I don't
>> think the status quo is good.
>
> If the choice is only between those two, I'd vote for nuking it and
> simplify the code, but honestly the current statu-quo has been running
> for 16 years and there are not many complains about it, so as a third
> choice the current situation is fine IMO. And it does not represent an
> extra maintenance load.
It's strange that this one keyword has been singled out for
transatlantic treatment, and it's good news that it's not documented.
We don't accept CATALOGUE, SERIALISABLE, MATERIALISED, AUTHORISATION
etc, and those like me who usually use those spellings in prose are
doing just fine with this exotic Californian software. +1 for nuking
it.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com