On 3/14/16 12:27 PM, Artur Zakirov wrote:
> On 14.03.2016 18:48, David Steele wrote:
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> On 2/25/16 5:00 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>
>>> But, It doesn't sound like I am going to win that debate. Given that,
>>> I don't think we need a different name for the function. I'm fine with
>>> explaining the word-boundary subtlety in the documentation, and
>>> keeping the function name itself simple.
>>
>> It's not clear to me if you are requesting more documentation here or
>> stating that you are happy with it as-is. Care to elaborate?
>>
>> Other than that I think this patch looks to be ready for committer. Any
>> objections?
>>
>
> There was some comments about the word-boundary subtlety. But I think it
> was not enough.
>
> I rephrased the explanation of word_similarity() and %>. It is better now.
>
> But if it is not correct I can change the explanation.
Since to only change in the latest patch is to documentation I have
marked this "ready for committer".
--
-David
david@pgmasters.net
