Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On the other hand, I don't think it's impossible to have matches that > start earlier than others in the string, but are actually found later > (say, because they are a parentized expression that ends later). So > giving the starting positions allows one to know where are they > located, rather than where were they reported. (I don't really know > if the matches are sorted before reporting though.)
I have no strong opinion about how matches are returned. Seeing the definitional difficulties that you point out, it may be fine to return them unordered. But then all "matches" functions should do that. For the "split" functions, however, providing the order is clearly important. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
