Re: add function argument names to regex* functions.
От | jian he |
---|---|
Тема | Re: add function argument names to regex* functions. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CACJufxHBx+AHGVJocDSD-PbX0z32vJR9eEUhB+vsJHbjwnXNcg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | add function argument names to regex* functions. (jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: add function argument names to regex* functions.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 7:26 AM Jim Nasby <jim.nasby@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 1/3/24 5:05 PM, Dian Fay wrote: > > Another possibility is `index`, which is relatively short and not a > reserved keyword ^1. `position` is not as precise but would avoid the > conceptual overloading of ordinary indices. > > I'm not a fan of "index" since that leaves the question of > whether it's 0 or 1 based. "Position" is a bit better, but I think > Jian's suggestion of "occurance" is best. > > We do have precedent for one-based `index` in Postgres: array types are > 1-indexed by default! "Occurrence" removes that ambiguity but it's long > and easy to misspell (I looked it up after typing it just now and it > _still_ feels off). > > How's "instance"? > > Presumably someone referencing arguments by name would have just looked up the names via \df or whatever, so presumablymisspelling wouldn't be a big issue. But I think "instance" is OK as well. > > -- > Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Austin TX regexp_instr: It has the syntax regexp_instr(string, pattern [, start [, N [, endoption [, flags [, subexpr ]]]]]) oracle: REGEXP_INSTR (source_char, pattern, [, position [, occurrence [, return_opt [, match_param [, subexpr ]]]]] ) "string" and "source_char" are almost the same descriptive, so maybe there is no need to change. "start" is better than "position", imho. "return_opt" is better than "endoption", (maybe we need change, for now I didn't) "flags" cannot be changed to "match_param", given it quite everywhere in functions-matching.html. similarly for function regexp_replace, oracle using "repplace_string", we use "replacement"(mentioned in the doc). so I don't think we need to change to "repplace_string". Based on how people google[0], I think `occurrence` is ok, even though it's verbose. to change from `N` to `occurrence`, we also need to change the doc, that is why this patch is more larger. [0]: https://www.google.com/search?q=regex+nth+match&oq=regex+nth+match&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQRRg8MgYIAhBFGDzSAQc2MThqMGo5qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: