Tom Lane wrote:
> =?UTF-8?Q?J=c3=bcrgen_Purtz?= <juergen@purtz.de> writes:
> > a) In my opinion this wording is easier to understand because it avoids
> > the negation via "not less".
>
> That's a fair point.
>
> The other difference is least/greatest versus smallest/largest. I'm not
> sure if using least/greatest would help the people who misunderstand
> "smallest" as "closest to zero". They might; but being less-common words,
> they might also confuse people whose native language isn't English.
> Anyone have an opinion about which to use?
As a non-native, the use of "least/greatest" makes it more explicit that
it refers to arithmetic inequality, whereas "smallest" sounds like it
may be related to absolute value comparisons. It's true that
least/greatest are less common words, but that makes it more likely that
they would be looked up in a dictionary, whereas with smallest/largest
people might stick to intuitive knowledge and get them wrong.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
