| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Dian Fay <di(at)nmfay(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <jim(dot)nasby(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: add function argument names to regex* functions. |
| Date: | 2024-05-15 19:07:15 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa7tLgrP1bmeWFJFzVeaAYwi6hcSrsjnpQWLcz83SrWSA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 3:01 PM David G. Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think this confusion goes to show that replacing N with count doesn't work.
>
> "replace_at" comes to mind as a better name.
I do not agree with that at all. It shows that a literal
search-and-replace changing N to count does not work, but it does not
show that count is a bad name for the concept, and I don't think it
is. I believe that if I were reading the documentation, count would be
clearer to me than N, N would probably still be clear enough, and
replace_at wouldn't be clear at all. I'd expect replace_at to be a
character position or something, not an occurrence count.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-05-15 19:10:08 | Re: add function argument names to regex* functions. |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-05-15 19:05:15 | Re: [PATCH] Add --syntax to postgres for SQL syntax checking |