Re: [HACKERS] Possible spelling fixes

Heikki wrote:
‎> I pushed most of these. Except for the below:
> optimisation -> optimization et al.

> Most of our code is written with the American spelling,
> but the British spelling isn't wrong,
> so I don't want to go around changing them all.

Sure

As you'll see, my approach is to aim for consistency. If you used en-GB 99% of the time, I'd have offered a change to
enforcethat. I have a personal preference, but there's no obligation, and I understand the potential costs churn
entails(I see you backported to branches).  

> NUL-terminated -> NULL-terminated

> When we're talking about NUL-terminated strings,
> NUL refers to the NUL ASCII character. NULL usually refers to a NULL pointer.

This wasn't even in my original set (i.e. The dictionary I'm using didn't consider NUL to be misspelled). I ran across
itwhile splitting comments out per Andres and figured I'd offer it as well.  

> We're probably not consistent about this,

Hrm, I was going to say "that's correct, you aren't", but rereading, I realize that I'd have to review every instance
inorder to prove to myself that statement. I could make the weaker argument that "nul-terminated" should be changed to
eitherNUL-terminated or null-terminated . My general approach is to only make changes when I can detect an
inconsistency.And I generally tend toward "majority rule". 

Here, I think the corpus has 4 spellings, and it sounds like it should only have two, but probably (NUL- and null-) not
thetwo I picked (NULL- and null-).  

> but in this context, NUL-terminated isn't wrong, so let's leave them as they are.

But that's OK. My goal in posting these is to encourage people to consider their code. 

>> Ooops -> Oops

> "Oops" is more idiomatic, but this doesn't really seem worth changing.

Technically oops is in dictionaries whereas the other isn't, but I understood the intent. 

> Maybe "Ooops" indicates a slightly bigger mistake than "oops" :-)

That seemed like the intent. It's certainly not unreasonable to retain it. It's also why I generally offer a queue, so
peoplecan reject families of changes.  

>> re-entrancy -> reentrancy

> Googling around, I can see both spellings being used.

Both are used, but reentrancy is in most dictionaries (and encyclopedias) and is the form that's used in instruction
(certainlyit was when I studied in university, and it isn't likely to regress). It's akin to email vs e-mail. Once the
dashlessform becomes accepted (within a domain [1]), it's the correct form, and the other was merely transitional.  

> "Re-entrancy" actually feels more natural to me, although I'm not sure which is more correct.
> Let's leave them as they are.

Sure 

>> passthru -> passthrough

> "Passthrough" is clearly the correct spelling (or "pass-through"?),

The former is also present in the codebase. (I didn't look for the latter, for the same reason as the previous note.)

> but "passthru" seems OK in the context, as an informal shorthand.

My goal is consistency. If you always spell a concept a single way, then grepping for that concept is easier and more
reliable. 

I personally recognize quite a few flavors, because they're usable for talking to Coverity / Purify. 

>> - * Temporay we use TSLexeme.flags for inner use...
>> + * Temporary we use TSLexeme.flags for inner use...

> Looking at the code real quick, I couldn't understand the original
meaning of this. Is it:
> * DT_USEASIS is a temporary value we use for something. For what?
> * DT_USEASIS is used temporarily for something.
> Does this mean, "temporarily" until we get around to write the code differently, or does
> it happen temporarily at runtime, or what?

> Just fixing the typo doesn't help much here,
> and I'm not sure if it should be "temporary" or "temporarily" anyway.

Apparently I didn't look at this one much at all. I believe temporarily is the intended word (fwiw, I originally
mis-correcteddirectly as directory, that I did spot before submitting). And probably as a runtime concept.  

But I'm not volunteering to fix all comments in the project ;-). After spelling fixes, I'm more likely to try actual
bugs/ usability issues. I have a specific bug which bit me, but fixing that would require more effort than a spelling
passand more cooperation. I tend to do a spelling pass to determine if the more expensive activity is viable. So far,
theproject is welcoming :-) so, perhaps I'll manage to write the real fix... 

> I wasn't sure if this changes the meaning of the comment slightly.
> An "UPDATE" in all-caps refers to an UPDATE statement,
> is that what's meant here? Or just updating a tuple,
> i.e. should this rather be "skip updating of the tuple" or "skip update of tuple"?

I'm not certain. I do understand that capital UPDATE is special. This one people more familiar with the project will
haveto resolve.  

Fwiw, if it's the former, you could omit the "of".

> This "postsql" refers to the SQL dialect of PostgreSQL,

I had to look up the other dialect from that line to decide it wasn't a spelling error. 

> rather than PostgreSQL the project.
> I don't remember seeing it called "postsql" anywhere else, though.

Nothing within the corpus I was changing shared that spelling, otherwise it too would have been changed :) 

Oddly, this specific thing feels like a Deja-vu. I wonder if I started a spelling fix series for Postgres a decade ago
orsomething... 

> We hardly care about what was an error in postqual anyway,
> though, so perhaps this should be rewritten into something else entirely,
> like "This is not allowed by the SQL standard, but ok on PostgreSQL"
> (assuming that's correct, I'm not 100% sure).
> Or just leave it alone.

I'd encourage you to find something that's meaningful and correct. 

> Thanks for the fixes!
  
You're welcome.

Thanks for the quick handling. Some projects take months. Or never respond.

> I was particularly impressed that you caught the typo in Marcel Kornacker's surname.

My tools identify both spellings as incorrect (and all possibly misspelled words are listed alphabetically), which
meansthat I have the opportunity to choose a correct spelling -- generally I'll Google if I'm concerned because there
isinsufficient preference within a corpus. 

Did you want me to submit emails for the remaining portions from 
https://github.com/jsoref/postgres/commits/spelling

 [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reentrant