* Noah Misch (noah@leadboat.com) wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 11:07:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > > * Noah Misch (noah@leadboat.com) wrote:
> > >> I see some advantages of writing "TokenUser", as you propose. However, our
> > >> error style guide says "Avoid mentioning called function names, either;
> > >> instead say what the code was trying to do." Mentioning an enumerator name is
> > >> morally similar to mentioning a function name.
> >
> > > That's a fair point, but it doesn't mean we should use a different
> > > spelling for the enumerator name to avoid that piece of the policy. I
> > > certianly don't see "token user" as saying "what the code was trying to
> > > do" in this case.
> >
> > FWIW, "token user" conveys entirely inappropriate, politically incorrect
> > connotations to me ;-). I don't have any great suggestions on what to use
> > instead, but I share Stephen's unhappiness with the wording as-committed.
>
> The wording in GetTokenUser() and AddUserToTokenDacl() seems fine; let's
> standardize on that. Also, every GetTokenUser() failure has been yielding two
> messages, the second contributing no further detail. I'll reduce that to the
> usual one message per failure.
This approach works for me.
Thanks!
Stephen
