| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
|---|
| From: | Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | [patch] Typo in ECPG Docs |
| Date: | 2005-05-09 15:22:00 |
| Message-ID: | 87wtq8pgpz.fsf@gate450.dyndns.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Hi,
I just stumbled across a spurious indefinite article in the ECPG docs.
See the attached patch.
Speaking of indefinite articles, there seems to be some inconsistency
in using "a SQL ..." and "an SQL ..." throughout the docs. This could
probably be easily fixed using a script, but I'm not sure if I'm
missing some grammatical details here, since English isn't my native
language.
regards,
Andreas
Index: ecpg.sgml
===================================================================
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ecpg.sgml,v
retrieving revision 1.63
diff -u -r1.63 ecpg.sgml
--- ecpg.sgml 22 Jan 2005 22:56:35 -0000 1.63
+++ ecpg.sgml 9 May 2005 03:44:13 -0000
@@ -446,7 +446,7 @@
</para>
<para>
- The declarations are also echoed to the output file as a normal C
+ The declarations are also echoed to the output file as normal C
variables, so there's no need to declare them again. Variables
that are not intended to be used in SQL commands can be declared
normally outside these special sections.
| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [patch] Typo in ECPG Docs |
| Date: | 2005-05-20 12:51:16 |
| Message-ID: | 428DDD44.703@samurai.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Andreas Seltenreich wrote:
> I just stumbled across a spurious indefinite article in the ECPG docs.
> See the attached patch.
Patch applied to HEAD and REL8_0_STABLE. Thanks for the patch.
> Speaking of indefinite articles, there seems to be some inconsistency
> in using "a SQL ..." and "an SQL ..." throughout the docs. This could
> probably be easily fixed using a script, but I'm not sure if I'm
> missing some grammatical details here, since English isn't my native
> language.
Good point, it would be good to make this consistent. I would guess "an
SQL ..." is the correct variant, but I don't have an authoritative
reference. AFAIK there is no grammatical difference, anyway.
-Neil