Robert Treat wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2005 10:57, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:27:28PM +0900, Atsushi Ogawa wrote:
> > > My idea is opposite. I think that the regexp_replace() should make
> > > "replace all" a default. Because the replace() of pgsql replaces all
> > > string, and regexp_replace() of oracle10g is also similar.
> >
> > I respectfully disagree.  Although Oracle does things this way, no
> > other regular expression search and replace does.  Historically, you
> > can find that "Oracle does it this way" is not a reason why we would
> > do it.  Text editors, programming languages, etc., etc. do "replace
> > the first" by default and "replace globally" only when told to.
> >
> You don't think it will be confusing to have a function called replace which 
> replaces all occurrences and a function called regex_replace which only 
> replaces the first occurance?  There's something to be said for consitancy 
> within pgsql itself. 

Huh?  I am confused.  Why if both support regex, why does regex_replace
only do the first one?

  Bruce Momjian                        |               |  (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 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
    (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])

Reply via email to