"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> I see where you are coming from but I think the word “need” is actual
> problem and it has to go. We use the phrase “escapes satisfying” in the
> subsequent sentence and should use it here too.
Meh. I don't like the "escapes" construction too much; I think it's
more confusing than "need not". But I agree that the two sentences
should use parallel constructions.
> Also, we go to the trouble of accepting “match partial”. Maybe add a final
> sentence in this paragraph nothing that we do so and explaining what
> partial is defined to mean in the standard?
I'd be inclined not to. That info would fit in the reference page
that covers this, but this is introductory material and shouldn't
get too deep in the weeds. (Of course, if we ever did add MATCH
PARTIAL, we'd have to explain it here. But nobody's done so in
twenty years so I'm not holding my breath.)
regards, tom lane
