Re: add function argument names to regex* functions.
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: add function argument names to regex* functions. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+Tgmobj8HN8-bormKJHpONtFr2wjXbKJS0cTKzrYvVU9KSxHA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: add function argument names to regex* functions. ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: add function argument names to regex* functions.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:13 PM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: > > You just broke my brain when you say that you read: > > By default, only the first match of the pattern is replaced. If replace_at is specified and greater than zero, then thefirst "replace_at - 1" matches are skipped before making a single replacement (i.e., the g flag is ignored when replace_atis specified.) > > And then say: > > I'd expect replace_at to be a character position or something, not an occurrence count. Ah. What I meant was: if I just saw the parameter name, and not the documentation, I believe that I would not correctly understand what it did. I would have had to read the docs. Whereas I'm pretty sure at some point years ago, I looked up these functions and I saw "N", and I did understand what that did without needing it explained. If I had seen "count" or "occurrence" I think I would have understood that without further explanation, too. So my point was: to me, N is more self-documenting than replace_at, and less self-documenting than count or occurrence. If your mileage varies on that point, so be it! -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: