David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 12:02:18PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 
> > Patch removed because we already have this functionality.
> We don't yet have this functionality, as the patch allows for using
> second and later regex matches "()" in the replacement pattern.
> The function is misnamed.  It should be called regex_replace_all() or
> some such, as it violates the principle of least astonishment by
> replacing all instances by default.  Every other regex replacement
> defaults to "replace first," not "replace all."  Or maybe it should
> take a bool for "replace all," or...?  Anyhow, it's worth a discussion
> :)

Does anyone want to argue that this additional functionality is
significant and deserves its own function or an additional argument to
the existing function?

  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to