| From: | David Ford <david+cert(at)blue-labs(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Parker Thompson <parkert(at)u(dot)washington(dot)edu>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: regular expression question |
| Date: | 2002-06-18 04:48:10 |
| Message-ID: | 3D0EBB8A.8030606@blue-labs.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Yes, and honestly I rather prefer the POSIX syntax in most cases, but I
do like some of the shorthands, i.e. < (or \<) is so much easier to type
than "[[:<:]]", and the same for > v.s. "[[:>:]]". That's just silly.
This by the way is an extension.
-d
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>David Ford dijo:
>
>
>
>>I wish everyone would use the same syntax...it's getting to the point
>>where you need a reference book for everybody's idea of how regex should
>>be done.
>>
>>
>
>In Linux (well, at least in Mandrake) you can look at regex(7) for the
>POSIX 1003.2 standard regexes, plus some things Henry Spencer added. His
>implementation is the one used in Postgres internally, so it has some
>value.
>
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Graeme Merrall | 2002-06-18 05:57:20 | Accessing another db? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2002-06-18 04:37:28 | Re: regular expression question |