[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Call for testing experimental patch
- Subject: Re: Call for testing experimental patch
- From: "Joshua D. Drake" <..hidden..>
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 08:17:09 -0700
Chris Travers wrote:
On 9/19/06, David Tangye <..hidden..> wrote:
On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 13:27 -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
I think it is too late to change the name of the table to
transactions, but I will consider it.
Its never too late to correct something, *if* its not right, surely?
You have a point. But I don't think this is at this point an issue of
one being "right" and the other being "not right" at the moment. In
this case, I think it is a matter of stylistics. Both names are
adequate and adequately descriptive, and both names have some slight
Well this really is semantics. We are essentially dealing with a ledger
there for having ledger in the transactions name is redundant. It
reminds me of people that do this:
Which is silly.
Joshua D. Drake
Hmm, put another way: Ouch, isn't this sounding a tad like the sort of
reaction we did not like when it came out of the SL camp?
If you make a case that it is broken, we will fix it :-) Right now,
this is a matter of whether we have consistant style and type a few
extra characters or whether we shorten the name a bit and change the
style of the rest of the db as we rewrite it. I think it is too late
to revisit this sort of decision unless a case can be made that it is
materially wrong. Otherwise, we can stop coding while we debate in
minute detail the arbitrary decisions made in the coding standards.
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
Ledger-smb-devel mailing list
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997