Re: Conventions
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Conventions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | YfIIySTYopod5t21@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Conventions (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Conventions
|
Список | pgsql-docs |
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 09:33:58PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > > OK, updated patch attached. I don't think we even show TCL syntax > > anywhere anymore, so I removed that text, rather than moving it. > > I really don't care for this phrasing at all: > > - the body of a PL/Tcl function: > + the body of a PL/Tcl function (brackets (<literal>[</literal> and > + <literal>]</literal>) are represented here as question marks): > > It's unclear whether you mean actual brackets or metasyntactic brackets; > somebody who hasn't completely internalized the notion of brackets as > indicating optional elements would be particularly likely to > misunderstand. > > I'd also suggest that wedging this into a parenthetic remark between a > sentence and the example the sentence is talking about is awkward. > > I'd suggest a separate para at some point before the first usage, > along the lines of > > In this section, we follow the usual Tcl convention of using question > marks, rather than brackets, to indicate an optional element in a > syntax synopsis. Oh, then I didn't understand it either. I know Tcl uses brackets for stuff so I thought there was some weird syntax that represented brackets as something else. Anyway, updated patch attached. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
Вложения
В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления: