X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7A563A426F for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:39:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 04127-06 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:39:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 624413A3F06 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:39:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iASKdZfD019968; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:39:35 -0500 (EST) To: Kenneth Tanzer Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Section 9.6.3.5, Regular Expression Matching Rules In-reply-to: <41A8E9E9.6010709@desc.org> References: <41A3C6C6.2090605@desc.org> <1713.1101254499@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1846.1101255318@sss.pgh.pa.us> <41A4CAA5.2040908@desc.org> <22644.1101340967@sss.pgh.pa.us> <41A7ADA8.5080205@desc.org> <20226.1101512356@sss.pgh.pa.us> <41A8E9E9.6010709@desc.org> Comments: In-reply-to Kenneth Tanzer message dated "Sat, 27 Nov 2004 12:56:09 -0800" Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:39:35 -0500 Message-ID: <19967.1101674375@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200411/58 X-Sequence-Number: 2693 Kenneth Tanzer writes: > Greediness is inherited from left to right, so that outer > subexpressions take precedence over their component subexpressions. The > greediness of an RE is set by the first subexpression that is either > greedy or non-greedy. Isn't that a contradiction in terms? I'd certainly think the term "inheritance" means top-down, whereas the actual behavior is bottom-up (except when "|" is involved). Anyway, I don't think this explanation is materially better than what we had. ISTM the real lack in this section is examples to clarify the implications of the rules, and you haven't added any ... in fact it looks like you removed the examples that were there. regards, tom lane