Re: Attribute must be GROUPed.... ? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: Attribute must be GROUPed.... ?
Date
Msg-id 003c01c30f79$013b0350$6401a8c0@DUNSLANE
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Attribute must be GROUPed.... ?  (Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>)
Responses Re: Attribute must be GROUPed.... ?  (Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>)
List pgsql-hackers
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>
> > I see... How should the "shall" term be considered ? I don't have much
> > knowledge of the SQL specs language.
>
> "In the Syntax Rules, the term shall defines conditions that are
> required to be true of syntactically conforming SQL language."
>
> I think most people would write "must", although I think "shall" might be
> more correct.
>


This is common usage in requirements docs - I suspect it has a government,
perhaps a military origin. Even after vetting and helping to author a great
many requirements docs it still makes me cringe, but then I don't split
infinitives either ;-)

andrew



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Attribute must be GROUPed.... ?
Next
From: "Francisco Figueiredo Jr."
Date:
Subject: Re: Cygwin PostgreSQL CVS build issues