Re: Patch to document base64 encoding - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Karl O. Pinc |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Patch to document base64 encoding |
Date | |
Msg-id | 20190311153214.6b24ac9c@slate.meme.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Patch to document base64 encoding (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>) |
Responses |
Re: Patch to document base64 encoding
Re: Patch to document base64 encoding |
List | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Fabien, On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 08:15:35 +0100 (CET) Fabien COELHO <coel > I registered as a reviewer in the CF app. Thanks. What's causing problems here is that the encode and decode functions are listed in both the string functions section and the binary functions section. A related but not-relevant problem is that there are functions listed in the string function section which take binary input. I asked about this on IRC and the brief reply was unflattering to the existing documentation. So I'm going to fix this also. 3 patches attached: doc_base64_part1_v9.patch This moves functions taking bytea and other non-string input into the binary string section, and vice versa. Eliminates duplicate encode() and decode() documentation. Affects: convert(bytea, name, name) convert_from(bytea, name) encode(bytea, text) length(bytea, name) quote_nullable(anytype) to_hex(int or bigint) decode(text, text) Only moves, eliminates duplicates, and adjusts indentation. doc_base64_part2_v9.patch Cleanup wording after moving functions between sections. doc_base64_part3_v9.patch Documents base64, hex, and escape encode() and decode() formats. > >> "The string and the binary encode and decode functions..." sentence > >> looks strange to me, especially with the English article that I do > >> not really master, so maybe it is ok. I'd have written something > >> more straightforward, eg: "Functions encode and decode support the > >> following encodings:", > > > > It is an atypical construction because I want to draw attention > > that this is documentation not only for the encode() and decode() > > in section 9.4. String Functions and Operators but also for the > > encode() and decode in section 9.5. Binary String Functions and > > Operators. Although I can't think of a better approach it makes me > > uncomfortable that documentation written in one section applies > > equally to functions in a different section. > > People coming from the binary doc would have no reason to look at the > string paragraph anyway. > > > Do you think it would be useful to hyperlink the word "binary" > > to section 9.5? > > Hmmm... I think that the link is needed in the other direction. I'm not sure what you mean here or if it's still relevant. > I'd suggest (1) to use a simpler and direct sentence in the string > section, (2) to simplify/shorten the in cell description in the > binary section, and (3) to add an hyperlink from the binary section > which would point to the expanded explanation in the string section. > > > The idiomatic phrasing would be "Both the string and the binary > > encode and decode functions..." but the word "both" adds > > no information. Shorter is better. > > Possibly, although "Both" would insist on the fact that it applies to > the two variants, which was your intention. I think this is no longer relevant. Although I'm not sure what you mean by 3. The format names already hyperlink back to the string docs. > >> and also I'd use a direct "Function > >> <...>decode</...> ..." rather than "The <function>decode</function> > >> function ..." (twice). > > > > The straightforward English would be "Decode accepts...". The > > problem is that this begins the sentence with the name of a > > function. This does not work very well when the function name is > > all lower case, and can have other problems where clarity is lost > > depending on documentation output formatting. > > Yep. > > > I don't see a better approach. > > I suggested "Function <>decode</> ...", which is the kind of thing we > do in academic writing to improve precision, because I thought it > could be better:-) "Function <>decode</> ..." just does not work in English. > >> Maybe I'd use the exact same grammatical structure for all 3 cases, > >> starting with "The <>whatever</> encoding converts bla bla bla" > >> instead of varying the sentences. > > > > Agreed. Good idea. The first paragraph of each term has to > > do with encoding and the second with decoding. > > > > Uniformity in starting the second paragraphs helps make > > this clear, even though the first paragraphs are not uniform. > > With this I am not concerned that the first paragraphs > > do not have a common phrasing that's very explicit about > > being about encoding. > > > > Adjusted. > > Cannot see it fully in the v8 patch: > > - The <literal>base64</literal> encoding is > - <literal>hex</literal> represents > - <literal>escape</literal> converts I did only the decode paras. I guess no reason not to make the first paras uniform as well. Done. I also alphabetized by format name. I hope that 3 patches will make review easier. Regards, Karl <kop@meme.com> Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Attachment
pgsql-hackers by date: