Обсуждение: Comment typo in namespace.c

Hi,

Attached fixes a typo: s/non-exstant/non-existant.

Alternatively, it could be spelled as 'existent' but the patch doesn't.
Nor does it drop the 's' and spell it 'non-extant' which may have been the
original intent.

Thanks,
Amit

Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> Attached fixes a typo: s/non-exstant/non-existant.
> Alternatively, it could be spelled as 'existent' but the patch doesn't.

"non-existant" is flat wrong, so if we're going to fix typos, let's
fix them to actually be English.
        regards, tom lane

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes:
>> Attached fixes a typo: s/non-exstant/non-existant.
>> Alternatively, it could be spelled as 'existent' but the patch doesn't.
>
> "non-existant" is flat wrong, so if we're going to fix typos, let's
> fix them to actually be English.

So, non-existent? non-extant? I seems to me like an 's' accidentally
sneaked in when the author of the comment tried to write the latter
spelling. But the former sounds more familiar (at least to me).

Thanks,
Amit

Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> "non-existant" is flat wrong, so if we're going to fix typos, let's
>> fix them to actually be English.

> So, non-existent? non-extant? I seems to me like an 's' accidentally
> sneaked in when the author of the comment tried to write the latter
> spelling. But the former sounds more familiar (at least to me).

"existent" is a word according to my dictionary, so "non-existent"
is fine.  "extant" is also a word but it's less common and doesn't
really mean the same thing --- it carries a connotation of "still
in existence, surviving".  So you might say "Stonebraker's papers
about Postgres from the '80s are still extant".  "Existent" just
means "in existence" without any particular implication about time
passing, so it's probably what is meant in most cases.

(Actually, in the particular context here, I guess "extant" would
be sensible, but it would be rather hi-falutin' usage.  I'd go
with "existent".)
        regards, tom lane

On 2016/01/07 1:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> "non-existant" is flat wrong, so if we're going to fix typos, let's
>>> fix them to actually be English.
> 
>> So, non-existent? non-extant? I seems to me like an 's' accidentally
>> sneaked in when the author of the comment tried to write the latter
>> spelling. But the former sounds more familiar (at least to me).
> 
> "existent" is a word according to my dictionary, so "non-existent"
> is fine.  "extant" is also a word but it's less common and doesn't
> really mean the same thing --- it carries a connotation of "still
> in existence, surviving".  So you might say "Stonebraker's papers
> about Postgres from the '80s are still extant".  "Existent" just
> means "in existence" without any particular implication about time
> passing, so it's probably what is meant in most cases.
> 
> (Actually, in the particular context here, I guess "extant" would
> be sensible, but it would be rather hi-falutin' usage.  I'd go
> with "existent".)

Thanks for the explanation.

Regards,
Amit