Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> ISTM that perhaps a more generally useful definition would be
>> lword                Only ASCII letters
>> nlword               Entirely letters per iswalpha(), but not lword
>> word         Entirely alphanumeric per iswalnum(), but not nlword

> ... how about

> lword         Entirely letters per iswalpha, with at least one ASCII
> nlword                Entirely letters per iswalpha
> word          Entirely alphanumeric per iswalnum, but not nlword

Hmm.  Then we have no category for "entirely ASCII", which is an
interesting category at least from the English standpoint, and I think
also in a lot of computer-oriented contexts.  I think you may be putting
too much emphasis on the "Latin" aspect of the category name, which I
find to be a bit historical.  I'm not sure if it's too late to consider
renaming the categories; if we were willing to do that I'd propose
categories "aword", "naword", "word", defined as above.

Another thing that bothers me about your suggestion is that (at least in
some locales) iswalpha will return true for things that are neither
ASCII letters nor accented versions of them, eg Cyrillic letters.
So I'm not sure the surprise factor is any less with your approach
than mine: you could still get "lword" for something decidedly not

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not

Reply via email to