On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 4:58 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> I ran a quick poll in a Spanish community. Everyone who responded (not
> many admittedly) agreed with this idea -- they find the message clearer
> if the keyword is mentioned explicitly in the translation.
Makes sense. I didn't really doubt that ADMIN should be capitalized, I
just wasn't sure about OPTION.
> > > In short, I'm wondering whether we should regard ADMIN as the name of
> > > the option, but OPTION as part of the GRANT syntax, and hence
> > > capitalize it "ADMIN option". However, if the non-English speakers on
> > > this list have a strong preference for something else I'm certainly
> > > not going to fight about it.
> >
> > "ADMIN option" which is translated into "ADMINオプション" is fine by
> > me. I hope Álvaro thinks the same way.
>
> Hmm, but our docs say that the option is called ADMIN OPTION, don't
> they? And I think the standard sees it the same way. You cannot invoke
> it without the word OPTION. I understand the point of view, but I don't
> think it is clearer done that way. It is different for example with
> INHERIT; we could say "the INHERIT option" making the word "option"
> translatable in that phrase. But then you don't have to add that word
> in the command.
It's going to be a little strange of we have ADMIN OPTION and INHERIT
option, isn't it? But we can try it.
One thing I have noticed, though, is that there are a lot of existing
references to ADMIN OPTION in code comments. If we decide on anything
else here we're going to have quite a few things to tidy up. Not that
that's a big deal I guess, but it's something to think about.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
