Re: Is this a typo?
| От | Thomas Munro |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Is this a typo? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+hUKGL9C_G2saj1U1pZKfHCOYc+aqkuiTUF5uco=R4wmUH51Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Is this a typo? (Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Is this a typo?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 4:45 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote: > IMO it's a typo. The correct spelling is "cacheable", so it should be > corrected where you reported and also in the other two places. +1 I think the incorrect spelling fits the usual pattern (movable, valuable, believable, ... with moveable accepted but dying), and it's definitely "caching" without the -e-, so it's probably a tempting mistake to make, but apparently we're making new words out of bits of French with the C preprocessor ## operator and ignoring all that. I bet it's "cachable" en français though. My Oxford Concise lists only the -e- form, so you have my vote. The online Merriam-Webster (I think that's the main reference for US spelling?) doesn't list either and suggests I might be looking for cashable. Now can anyone explain why database people write "sargable[1]", but universally pronounce it as "sargeable"? That shows the reason to keep an e around before an a, in our chaotic spelling system, if you can call it a system :-) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargable
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: