On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Artur Zakirov <a.zakirov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On 14.03.2016 18:48, David Steele wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> On 2/25/16 5:00 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>
>>> But, It doesn't sound like I am going to win that debate. Given that,
>>> I don't think we need a different name for the function. I'm fine with
>>> explaining the word-boundary subtlety in the documentation, and
>>> keeping the function name itself simple.
>>
>>
>> It's not clear to me if you are requesting more documentation here or
>> stating that you are happy with it as-is. Care to elaborate?
>>
>> Other than that I think this patch looks to be ready for committer. Any
>> objections?
>>
>
> There was some comments about the word-boundary subtlety. But I think it was
> not enough.
>
> I rephrased the explanation of word_similarity() and %>. It is better now.
>
> But if it is not correct I can change the explanation.
<% and <<-> are not documented at all. Is that a deliberate choice?
Since they were added as convenience functions for the user, I think
they really need to be in the user documentation.
Also, the documentation should probably include <% and <<-> as the
"parent" operators and use them in the examples, and only mention %>
and <->> in passing, as the commutators. That is because <% and <<->
take their arguments in the same order as word_similarity does. It
would be less confusing if the documentation and the examples didn't
need to keep changing the argument orders.
Cheers,
Jeff