Hello Tom,
oid OID
Meh. I'm not a fan of overuse of upper case --- it's well established
that that's harder to read than lower or mixed case. And it's definitely
project policy that type names are generally treated as identifiers not
keywords, even if some of them happen to be keywords under the hood.
I found "oid oid" stuttering kind of strange, hence an attempt at
suggesting something that could distinguish them.
The markup I had in mind was <structfield> for the field name
and <type> for the type name, but no decoration beyond that.
Ok. If they are displayed a little differently afterwards that'd may help.
As for the references, it seems to me that your notation would lead
people to think that there are actual FK constraints in place, which
of course there are not (especially not on the views).
In practice the system ensures that the target exists, so it is as-if
there would be a foreign key enforced?
My point is that using differing syntaxes for the more-or-less the same
concept does not help user understand the semantics, but maybe that is
just me.
I'm not hugely against it but I prefer what I suggested.
Ok!
--
Fabien.
