On 2018/11/20 15:58, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 02:00:39PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> - * We also use EquivalenceClasses as the base structure for PathKeys, letting
>>> + * We also use EquivalenceClass as the base structure for PathKeys, letting
>
>> ... But not that.
>
> The reason that's not good is that it creates a singular-plural mismatch.
Hmm, yeah.
> If you'd also changed "PathKeys" to "PathKey", it would still read OK,
> though I don't think it's an improvement particularly.
So,
- * We also use EquivalenceClasses as the base structure for PathKeys,
+ * We also use EquivalenceClass as the base structure for PathKey,
> (Hm ... though arguably, "structure" should be "structures" if we're
> going to let it stand as plural.)
vs.
- * We also use EquivalenceClasses as the base structure for PathKeys,
+ * We also use EquivalenceClasses as the base structures for PathKeys,
If I'm understanding this right, aren't different orderings represented by
different PathKey nodes considered equivalent if they share the base
EquivalenceClass? If that's the case, I think the former reads better.
Thanks,
Amit
