Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] writing new regexp functions

2007-02-04 Thread Jeremy Drake
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, David Fetter wrote: > On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 07:01:33PM -0800, Jeremy Drake wrote: > > > Let me know if you see any bugs or issues with this code, and I am > > open to suggestions for further regression tests ;) > > > Things that I still want to look into: > > * regexp flags (

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] writing new regexp functions

2007-02-04 Thread David Fetter
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 07:01:33PM -0800, Jeremy Drake wrote: > Let me know if you see any bugs or issues with this code, and I am > open to suggestions for further regression tests ;) > Things that I still want to look into: > * regexp flags (a la regexp_replace). One more text field at the end

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] writing new regexp functions

2007-02-02 Thread Jeremy Drake
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, David Fetter wrote: > On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 08:56:31PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > All of SQL's pattern match operators have the pattern on the right, > > so my advice is to stick with that and try not to think about Perl > > ;-) > > Perl provides inspiration, but here, co

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] writing new regexp functions

2007-02-01 Thread Jeremy Drake
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Jeremy Drake wrote: > On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Jeremy Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Is there some specific reason that these functions are static, > > > > Yeah: not cluttering the global namespace. > > > Is there a reason for not putting your new code