Typo

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 08:52:25PM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:

There appears to be a typo, here:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/history.html#:~:text=Postgres95%20code%20was%20completely%20ANSI%20C.
A word or two should be added between 'completely' and 'ANSI C', such as
're-written in', or 're-coded using', or some such.

This is the current sentence, and it sounds kind of OK to me, FWIW:
"Postgres95 code was completely ANSI C and trimmed in size by 25%.
--
Michael

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 3:32 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 08:52:25PM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:

There appears to be a typo, here:

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/history.html#:~:text=Postgres95%20code%20was%20completely%20ANSI%20C
.

A word or two should be added between 'completely' and 'ANSI C', such as
're-written in', or 're-coded using', or some such.

This is the current sentence, and it sounds kind of OK to me, FWIW:
"Postgres95 code was completely ANSI C and trimmed in size by 25%.

I agree with the OP, that is missing something. Maybe:

Between the 4.2 release and the release of Postgres95 the code was made to
completely adhere to ANSI C and the size was reduced by 25%.

David J.

On Wed, 2023-05-24 at 07:32 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 08:52:25PM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:

There appears to be a typo, here:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/history.html#:~:text=Postgres95%20code%20was%20completely%20ANSI%20C.
A word or two should be added between 'completely' and 'ANSI C', such as
're-written in', or 're-coded using', or some such.

This is the current sentence, and it sounds kind of OK to me, FWIW:
"Postgres95 code was completely ANSI C and trimmed in size by 25%.

That uses "ANSI C" as an adjective, which I think is sloppy wording
(even though English is somewhat relaxed about the distinction between
classes of words).

How about: "... was written completely in ANSI C ..."

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> writes:

On Wed, 2023-05-24 at 07:32 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:

This is the current sentence, and it sounds kind of OK to me, FWIW:
"Postgres95 code was completely ANSI C and trimmed in size by 25%.

That uses "ANSI C" as an adjective, which I think is sloppy wording
(even though English is somewhat relaxed about the distinction between
classes of words).

Yeah, it's not great English, but it's not awful English either;
just a rather telegraphic (abbreviated) style.

Here's the thing: at this point, this documentation is itself a
historical artifact. git excavation dates the current wording to
8baa8fcf4 of 1999-06-21, and that was just a small adjustment of
c8cfb0cea of 1998-03-01, and it seems likely that that was pulled
verbatim from some older source.

So I'm disinclined to change it on grounds of "I think the grammar
is a bit shaky". It is what it is.

regards, tom lane

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> writes:

On Wed, 2023-05-24 at 07:32 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:

This is the current sentence, and it sounds kind of OK to me, FWIW:
"Postgres95 code was completely ANSI C and trimmed in size by 25%.

That uses "ANSI C" as an adjective, which I think is sloppy wording
(even though English is somewhat relaxed about the distinction between
classes of words).

Yeah, it's not great English, but it's not awful English either;
just a rather telegraphic (abbreviated) style.

Here's the thing: at this point, this documentation is itself a
historical artifact. git excavation dates the current wording to
8baa8fcf4 of 1999-06-21, and that was just a small adjustment of
c8cfb0cea of 1998-03-01, and it seems likely that that was pulled
verbatim from some older source.

So I'm disinclined to change it on grounds of "I think the grammar
is a bit shaky". It is what it is.

Agreed. Besides, after a couple of more passes it grew on me, once I
filled in the missing “compared to what” sufficiently.

David J.