On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 03:27:33PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 03:10:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > > We are inconsistently about adding a comma after e.g. and i.e.:
> >
> > > This summarizes the recommended behavior:
> > > https://jakubmarian.com/comma-after-i-e-and-e-g/
> > > In British English, “i.e.” and “e.g.” are not followed by a comma, so
> > > the first example above would be:
> > > They sell computer components, e.g. motherboards, graphic cards, CPUs.
> > > Virtually all American style guides recommend to follow both “i.e.” and
> > > “e.g.” with a comma (just like if “that is” and “for example” were used
> > > instead), so the very same sentence in American English would become:
> >
> > > So, what do we want to do? Leave it unchanged, or pick one of these
> > > styles?
> >
> > I think it's fairly pointless to try to enforce such a thing.
> > Even if you made the docs 100% consistent on the issue today,
> > they wouldn't stay that way for long, because nobody else is
> > really going to care about it.
> >
> > (FWIW, I generally write a comma myself. But I'm not going
> > to cry about text that hasn't got one.)
>
> I wasn't worried about enforcing going forward, but rather if we should
> make what we have now consistent.
I plan to move forward with this, and will backpatch it so later patches
are easier to apply. I think we are fine with adding inconsistent
usages over time --- this is probably only something we will address in
mass every 10 years or so.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
