Hello Tom,
>> oid OID
>
> Meh. I'm not a fan of overuse of upper case --- it's well established
> that that's harder to read than lower or mixed case. And it's definitely
> project policy that type names are generally treated as identifiers not
> keywords, even if some of them happen to be keywords under the hood.
I found "oid oid" stuttering kind of strange, hence an attempt at
suggesting something that could distinguish them.
> The markup I had in mind was <structfield> for the field name
> and <type> for the type name, but no decoration beyond that.
Ok. If they are displayed a little differently afterwards that'd may help.
> As for the references, it seems to me that your notation would lead
> people to think that there are actual FK constraints in place, which
> of course there are not (especially not on the views).
In practice the system ensures that the target exists, so it is as-if
there would be a foreign key enforced?
My point is that using differing syntaxes for the more-or-less the same
concept does not help user understand the semantics, but maybe that is
just me.
> I'm not hugely against it but I prefer what I suggested.
Ok!
--
Fabien.