On 11/22/2010 06:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler"<david@kineticode.com> writes:
>> Patch attached.
> Most of those changes seem like they make it less readable, not more so.
> In particular I don't find it an improvement to replace "textual label"
> with "textual value". I think of "value" as meaning some abstract
> notion of a particular enum member, which is not identical to the
> concrete text string that represents it. If you consider them the same
> thing then renaming an enum value would be a meaningless concept.
>
> Maybe instead of "textual label", we should say "name"? But that
> doesn't seem like quite le mot juste either. "label" is actually a
> pretty good word for the text representation of an enum value.
Oh my boots and buttons. I think we're splitting some very fine hairs
here. A few weeks back you were telling us that label wasn't a very good
word and shouldn't be sanctified in the SQL.
I don't mind that much leaving it as it is, but we do seem to be
straining at gnats a bit.
cheers
andrew
