Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just for clarification.
> Are you going to make these changes in the 8.3 beta test period?
Yes, I committed them a couple hours ago.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7
Just for clarification.
Are you going to make these changes in the 8.3 beta test period?
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> If I am reading the state machine in wparser_def.c correctly, the
> three classifications of words that the default parser knows are
>
> lword Composed entirely
Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> asciiword
>>> word
>>> numword
> No huge preference, but I see benefit in what Gregory was saying re:
> asciiword, alphaword, alnumword. word itself is pretty general, while
> alphaword ties it much closer to its intended me
On Oct 23, 2007, at 12:09 , Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
OK, so with that and Michael's suggestion we have
asciiword
word
numword
asciihword
hword
numhword
hword_asciipart
hword_part
hword_numpart
Sold?
Sol
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Out of curiosity would the foo in foo-bär or the foo-beta1 be a
> hword_asciipart or a hword_part/hword_numpart?
foo would be hword_asciipart independently of what was in the other
parts of the hword. AFAICS this is what you want for the purpose,
which
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> hword_asciipart
> hword_part
> hword_numpart
Out of curiosity would the foo in foo-bär or the foo-beta1 be a
hword_asciipart or a hword_part/hword_numpart?
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Tom Lane wrote:
> OK, so with that and Michael's suggestion we have
>
> asciiword
> word
> numword
>
> asciihword
> hword
> numhword
>
> hword_asciipart
> hword_part
> hword_numpart
>
> Sold?
Sold here.
--
Alvaro Herrera
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
>> If we were doing it from scratch I would suggest using longer names. At the
>> least I would still suggest using "ascii" or "asciiword" instead of "aword".
> +1 for asciiword; "aword" sounds too much like "a word" which is not th
Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I wrote:
> >> Maybe "aword", "word", and "numword"?
> >
> > Does the lack of response mean people are satisfied with that?
>
> Sorry, I had a couple responses partially written but never finished.
>
> If we were doing it from sc
Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Oct 23, 2007, at 10:42 , Tom Lane wrote:
> >> apart_hwordPart of hyphenated word, all ASCII letters
> >> part_hword Part of hyphenated word, all letters
> >> numpart_hword Part of hyphenated word, mixed letters and
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wrote:
>> Maybe "aword", "word", and "numword"?
>
> Does the lack of response mean people are satisfied with that?
Sorry, I had a couple responses partially written but never finished.
If we were doing it from scratch I would suggest using longer names.
Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Oct 23, 2007, at 10:42 , Tom Lane wrote:
>> apart_hword Part of hyphenated word, all ASCII letters
>> part_hword Part of hyphenated word, all letters
>> numpart_hwordPart of hyphenated word, mixed letters and digits
> Is there a ration
On Oct 23, 2007, at 10:42 , Tom Lane wrote:
apart_hword Part of hyphenated word, all ASCII letters
part_hword Part of hyphenated word, all letters
numpart_hword Part of hyphenated word, mixed letters and digits
Is there a rationale for using these instead of hword_apart,
hword_pa
I wrote:
> (As an example, "foo-beta1" is a numhword, with component tokens
> "foo" an aword and "beta1" a numword. This is how it works now
> modulo the redefinition of the base categories.)
Argh... need more caffeine. Obviously the component tokens would
be apart_hword and numpart_hword. They
I wrote:
> Maybe "aword", "word", and "numword"?
Does the lack of response mean people are satisfied with that?
Fleshing the proposal out to include the hyphenated-word categories:
aword All ASCII letters
wordAll letters according to iswalpha()
numword Mixed letters
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I like the "aword" name more than "lword", BTW. If we change the meaning
>> of the classes, surely we can change the name as well, right?
> I'm not very familiar with the use case here. Is there a good
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> lwordEntirely letters per iswalpha, with at least one ASCII
>> nlword Entirely letters per iswalpha
>> word Entirely alphanumeric per iswalnum, but not nlword
> I don't like this categ
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> 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
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > 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(), bu
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> ISTM that perhaps a more generally useful definition would be
>>
>> lwordOnly ASCII letters
>> nlword Entirely letters per iswalpha(), but not lword
>> word Entirely alphanumeric per iswalnum(), but not nlword
>>
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> ISTM that perhaps a more generally useful definition would be
>>
>> lwordOnly ASCII letters
>> nlword Entirely letters per iswalpha(), but not lword
>> word Entirely alphanumeric per iswalnum(), b
Tom Lane wrote:
> ISTM that perhaps a more generally useful definition would be
>
> lword Only ASCII letters
> nlwordEntirely letters per iswalpha(), but not lword
> word Entirely alphanumeric per iswalnum(), but not nlword
> (hence, includes at leas
22 matches
Mail list logo
