Thread: Not an error but a difficult wording
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/sourcerepo.html Description: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sourcerepo.html I was convinced that there was a missing word or something in "because the files that these tools are used to build are included in the tarball" I had to read this several times, until I saw that it was actually correct. Maybe this would be better? (I don't know the comma rules) "because the files(,?) that are generated/processed by these tools(,?) are already included in the tarball"
On Wed, 2023-01-25 at 08:22 +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/sourcerepo.html > Description: > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sourcerepo.html > > I was convinced that there was a missing word or something in > "because the files that these tools are used to build are included in the > tarball" > I had to read this several times, until I saw that it was actually > correct. > > Maybe this would be better? (I don't know the comma rules) > "because the files(,?) that are generated/processed by these tools(,?) are > already included in the tarball" +1 Correct English would be: These tools are not needed to build from a distribution tarball, because the files generated by these tools are included in the tarball. Yours, Laurenz Albe
Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> writes:
> On Wed, 2023-01-25 at 08:22 +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
>> Maybe this would be better? (I don't know the comma rules)
>> "because the files(,?) that are generated/processed by these tools(,?) are
>> already included in the tarball"
> +1
> Correct English would be:
> These tools are not needed to build from a distribution tarball, because
> the files generated by these tools are included in the tarball.
The existing wording is not incorrect AFAICS, but I agree it's a bit
awkward. I'd modify one word in your version:
These tools are not needed to build from a distribution tarball, because
the files generated using these tools are included in the tarball.
Or possibly "with" instead of "using"?
regards, tom lane
On Wed, 2023-01-25 at 20:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> writes: > > On Wed, 2023-01-25 at 08:22 +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote: > > > Maybe this would be better? (I don't know the comma rules) > > > "because the files(,?) that are generated/processed by these tools(,?) are > > > already included in the tarball" > > > +1 > > > Correct English would be: > > > These tools are not needed to build from a distribution tarball, because > > the files generated by these tools are included in the tarball. > > The existing wording is not incorrect AFAICS, but I agree it's a bit > awkward. I meant "a correct version of what was suggested in the mail", not that the released text was incorrect. > I'd modify one word in your version: > > These tools are not needed to build from a distribution tarball, because > the files generated using these tools are included in the tarball. > > Or possibly "with" instead of "using"? Both are better; I'd lean towards "with". Yours, Laurenz Albe
Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> writes:
> On Wed, 2023-01-25 at 20:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'd modify one word in your version:
>>
>> These tools are not needed to build from a distribution tarball, because
>> the files generated using these tools are included in the tarball.
>>
>> Or possibly "with" instead of "using"?
> Both are better; I'd lean towards "with".
Done that way then, thanks.
regards, tom lane