Re: WIP patch for consolidating misplaced-aggregate checks - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: WIP patch for consolidating misplaced-aggregate checks
Date
Msg-id CAM-w4HOZ0aamuyunbLSHd_55iULM9_G5cG9dzA+vu39Y+c+oNw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP patch for consolidating misplaced-aggregate checks  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Out of office
Re: WIP patch for consolidating misplaced-aggregate checks
Re: WIP patch for consolidating misplaced-aggregate checks
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Fair enough.  I was not sold on doing that either.  I would still like
> to know if it's okay to use one string with %s for the cases where
> there's not a good reason for the "context" to be more than just a
> SQL keyword.

Given that the SQL keyword is going to be an English word I can't
imagine how this could be a big deal for translators. It might not
match gender or case or something but only if the reader is
automatically mentally translating the keyword into their language and
then applying that language's rules to it. At least to me it makes
sense to refer to "VALUES" as a singular noun or "LIMIT" as a generic
male noun even though "limitation" would be feminine (I had to look
that one up though so perhaps I'm not the best person to judge).

-- 
greg



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: error handling in logging hooks
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: bug of pg_trgm?