Обсуждение: Using '>' in docs
I see 34 instance of "=>" in our docs. Shouldn't the '>' be escaped, e.g. =>? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. +
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> I see 34 instance of "=>" in our docs. Shouldn't the '>' be escaped,
> e.g. =>?
In principle, yes, though you can often get away with this as long as
there's not a '<' nearby ...
regards, tom lane
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:51:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > > I see 34 instance of "=>" in our docs. Shouldn't the '>' be escaped, > > e.g. =>? > > In principle, yes, though you can often get away with this as long as > there's not a '<' nearby ... Yeah, that's what I thought --- it seems sloppy. What I am not clear about is how to find other cases. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. +
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:53:51PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:51:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > > > I see 34 instance of "=>" in our docs. Shouldn't the '>' be escaped, > > > e.g. =>? > > > > In principle, yes, though you can often get away with this as long as > > there's not a '<' nearby ... > > Yeah, that's what I thought --- it seems sloppy. What I am not clear > about is how to find other cases. Done. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. +