Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> This doesn't seem to me to be terribly well expressed (I know it's not your fault, quite possibly it's mine.) Perhaps we should replace
> [r]?[cyl](pp)?
> with
> (c|cpp|y|l|rc)
+1 ... the original coding is illegible already, not to mention wrong
since it will match stuff it shouldn't.
regards, tom lane