The may/can/might business
3606c3606
< errmsg("aggregate function calls cannot be nested")));
---
errmsg("aggregate function calls may not be nested")));
I don't think that this is an improvement, or even correct English.
You have changed a message that states that an action is logically
impossible into one that implies we are arbitrarily refusing to let
the user do something that *could* be done, if only we'd let him.
There is relevant material in the message style guidelines, section
45.3.8: it says that "cannot open file "%s" ... indicates that the
functionality of opening the named file does not exist at all in the
program, or that it's conceptually impossible."
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
3606c3606
< errmsg("aggregate function calls cannot be nested")));
---errmsg("aggregate function calls may not be nested")));
I don't think that this is an improvement, or even correct English.
You have changed a message that states that an action is logically
impossible into one that implies we are arbitrarily refusing to let
the user do something that *could* be done, if only we'd let him.There is relevant material in the message style guidelines, section
45.3.8: it says that "cannot open file "%s" ... indicates that the
functionality of opening the named file does not exist at all in the
program, or that it's conceptually impossible."
Uh, I think you might be reading the diff backwards. The current CVS
wording is "cannot".
--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Richard Troy wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Bruce Momjian wrote:
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Tom Lane wrote:3606c3606
< errmsg("aggregate function calls cannot be nested")));
---errmsg("aggregate function calls may not be nested")));
I don't think that this is an improvement, or even correct English.
You have changed a message that states that an action is logically
impossible into one that implies we are arbitrarily refusing to let
the user do something that *could* be done, if only we'd let him.There is relevant material in the message style guidelines, section
45.3.8: it says that "cannot open file "%s" ... indicates that the
functionality of opening the named file does not exist at all in the
program, or that it's conceptually impossible."Uh, I think you might be reading the diff backwards. The current CVS
wording is "cannot".No, Bruce, he got it exactly right: "cannot" indicates, as Tom put it,
"logical impossibility," whereas "may not" suggests that something could
happen but it's being prevented. His parsing of the english was spot-on.
Right, but the changes was from "may not" (permission) to "cannot"
(logical impossibility), which I think is what he wanted.
Is there an open source grammar award we can win? :-)
--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: Pine.LNX.4.33.0702011303530.23745-100000@denzel.in | Resolved by subject fallback
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
3606c3606
< errmsg("aggregate function calls cannot be nested")));
---errmsg("aggregate function calls may not be nested")));
I don't think that this is an improvement, or even correct English.
Uh, I think you might be reading the diff backwards. The current CVS
wording is "cannot".
Er ... duh. Sorry about that; got confused while merging with some
work-in-progress.
<emily litella>Never mind.</emily litella>
regards, tom lane
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Bruce Momjian wrote:
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Tom Lane wrote:3606c3606
< errmsg("aggregate function calls cannot be nested")));
---errmsg("aggregate function calls may not be nested")));
I don't think that this is an improvement, or even correct English.
You have changed a message that states that an action is logically
impossible into one that implies we are arbitrarily refusing to let
the user do something that *could* be done, if only we'd let him.There is relevant material in the message style guidelines, section
45.3.8: it says that "cannot open file "%s" ... indicates that the
functionality of opening the named file does not exist at all in the
program, or that it's conceptually impossible."Uh, I think you might be reading the diff backwards. The current CVS
wording is "cannot".
No, Bruce, he got it exactly right: "cannot" indicates, as Tom put it,
"logical impossibility," whereas "may not" suggests that something could
happen but it's being prevented. His parsing of the english was spot-on.
RT
--
Richard Troy, Chief Scientist
Science Tools Corporation
510-924-1363 or 202-747-1263
rtroy@ScienceTools.com, http://ScienceTools.com/