On 07/13/2011 12:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian<bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think you misunderstood the suggestion. This is not an improvement,
>>> it's just more confusion.
>> Well, I thought the "lock on" wording helped avoid the confusion but
>> obviously I didn't understand more than that. We did have similar
>> confusion when we clarified the locking C code. For me, "object" was
>> the stumbler. Do you have any suggested wording? Everyone seems to
>> agree it needs improvement.
> Well, first, "lock object" is completely useless, it does not convey
> more than "lock" does; and second, you've added confusion because the
> very same sentences also use "object" to refer to the thing being
> locked.
>
Maybe "lock" for the lock itself and "lock target" for the thing locked,
or some such, would work.
I agree that "object" on its own is not a terribly helpful term. It's
too often shorthand for "whatever-it-is".
cheers
andrew
