Re: leakproof
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-02-22T16:26:34Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 02/22/2012 11:14 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: > >> Returning to the original point, I've come to the conclusion that >> "pure" isn't the right way to go. The trouble with "leakproof" is >> that it doesn't point to what it is that's not leaking, which is >> information rather than memory, as many might imagine (and I did) >> without further hints. I'm not sure any single English word would >> be as descriptive as I'd like. > > Discreet? > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discreet > > I guess the risk is that people would confuse it with "discrete". > Yes, too confusing. "silent" might be better along those lines. cheers andrew