David Fetter wrote:
>On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 10:42:56AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>
>>Neil Conway wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 5-May-04, at 2:26 AM, David Fetter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Here it is :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Looks good for the most part. A few minor quibbles / suggestions:
>>>
>>>- Where an example uses double-quotes in a function body, we ought
>>>to change the example to use dollar quoting -- but if no
>>>doubled-quotes are used, I think it's better to just stick with
>>>single quotes. You've needlessly converted a few function bodies
>>>to use dollar quotes in violation of this principle -- please
>>>revert them
>>>
>>>
>>I disagree. I think swiching between single quote and $$ based on
>>the content is just too confusing. I would just use $$ in all cases
>>unless $$ appears in the function (which should be rare), in which
>>case I would use $quote$ or something generic. I am also not a fan
>>of using $something$ that varies based on the type of function.
>>
>>
>
>You folks have commit privs, so please settle on something.
>
>Here's $.01 worth:
>
>It ought to be pretty clear in each example that the stuff between the
>$'s can be varied.
>
>Another $.01:
>
>Examples are in distressingly short and cloudy supply across
>PostgreSQL docs. This appears to reflect the Greek tradition of
>inquiry, as opposed (in this case) to the Babylonian one Richard
>Feynman advocated, cf. <http://www.jefallbright.net/node/view/2062>.
>
>I am doing what I can to correct this deficiency, and encourage others
>to join me in this effort.
>
>OK, that's my $.02 :)
>
>
>
My own style, taken from what I use in heredocs, would indicate the kind
of thing enclosed. It's a matter of taste, but I think that style could
help make the examples clearer, expecially as it is most useful when we
have deeply nested stuff.
BTW, my thanks to David for having undertaken the task of doing this docco.
cheers
andrew
