Thread: Comment typo in namespace.c
Hi, Attached fixes a typo: s/non-exstant/non-existant. Alternatively, it could be spelled as 'existent' but the patch doesn't. Nor does it drop the 's' and spell it 'non-extant' which may have been the original intent. Thanks, Amit
Attachment
Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes: > Attached fixes a typo: s/non-exstant/non-existant. > Alternatively, it could be spelled as 'existent' but the patch doesn't. "non-existant" is flat wrong, so if we're going to fix typos, let's fix them to actually be English. regards, tom lane
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes: >> Attached fixes a typo: s/non-exstant/non-existant. >> Alternatively, it could be spelled as 'existent' but the patch doesn't. > > "non-existant" is flat wrong, so if we're going to fix typos, let's > fix them to actually be English. So, non-existent? non-extant? I seems to me like an 's' accidentally sneaked in when the author of the comment tried to write the latter spelling. But the former sounds more familiar (at least to me). Thanks, Amit
Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> "non-existant" is flat wrong, so if we're going to fix typos, let's >> fix them to actually be English. > So, non-existent? non-extant? I seems to me like an 's' accidentally > sneaked in when the author of the comment tried to write the latter > spelling. But the former sounds more familiar (at least to me). "existent" is a word according to my dictionary, so "non-existent" is fine. "extant" is also a word but it's less common and doesn't really mean the same thing --- it carries a connotation of "still in existence, surviving". So you might say "Stonebraker's papers about Postgres from the '80s are still extant". "Existent" just means "in existence" without any particular implication about time passing, so it's probably what is meant in most cases. (Actually, in the particular context here, I guess "extant" would be sensible, but it would be rather hi-falutin' usage. I'd go with "existent".) regards, tom lane
On 2016/01/07 1:03, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> "non-existant" is flat wrong, so if we're going to fix typos, let's >>> fix them to actually be English. > >> So, non-existent? non-extant? I seems to me like an 's' accidentally >> sneaked in when the author of the comment tried to write the latter >> spelling. But the former sounds more familiar (at least to me). > > "existent" is a word according to my dictionary, so "non-existent" > is fine. "extant" is also a word but it's less common and doesn't > really mean the same thing --- it carries a connotation of "still > in existence, surviving". So you might say "Stonebraker's papers > about Postgres from the '80s are still extant". "Existent" just > means "in existence" without any particular implication about time > passing, so it's probably what is meant in most cases. > > (Actually, in the particular context here, I guess "extant" would > be sensible, but it would be rather hi-falutin' usage. I'd go > with "existent".) Thanks for the explanation. Regards, Amit