From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: PostgreSQL-documentation <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Add comma after e.g. and i.e.?
In-reply-to: <20200825183619.GA22369@momjian.us>
References: <20200825183619.GA22369@momjian.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
	message dated "Tue, 25 Aug 2020 14:36:19 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <2760921.1598382644.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 15:10:44 -0400
Message-ID: <2760922.1598382644@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> We are inconsistently about adding a comma after e.g. and i.e.:

> This summarizes the recommended behavior:
> 	https://jakubmarian.com/comma-after-i-e-and-e-g/
> 	In British English, =E2=80=9Ci.e.=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Ce.g.=E2=80=9D a=
re not followed by a comma, so
> 	the first example above would be:
> 		They sell computer components, e.g. motherboards, graphic cards, CPUs.
> 	Virtually all American style guides recommend to follow both =E2=80=9Ci=
.e.=E2=80=9D and
> 	=E2=80=9Ce.g.=E2=80=9D with a comma (just like if =E2=80=9Cthat is=E2=80=
=9D and =E2=80=9Cfor example=E2=80=9D were used
> 	instead), so the very same sentence in American English would become:

> So, what do we want to do?  Leave it unchanged, or pick one of these
> styles?

I think it's fairly pointless to try to enforce such a thing.
Even if you made the docs 100% consistent on the issue today,
they wouldn't stay that way for long, because nobody else is
really going to care about it.

(FWIW, I generally write a comma myself.  But I'm not going
to cry about text that hasn't got one.)

			regards, tom lane