Subject: Re: add function argument names to regex* functions.
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
 "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CACJufxG3NFKKsh6x4fRLv8h3V-HvN4W5dA=zNKMxsNcDwOKang@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY3KI01TXYMD.3Q41WQ6U0NFEO@nmfay.com>
 <0eb3a5d7-75d8-4da5-9c88-a93deccdaa03@gmail.com>
 <CY5G4TAMVX32.23TH6LFF93ATZ@nmfay.com>
 <75129a34-14da-48aa-9906-42062fe78664@gmail.com>
 <CACJufxHBx+AHGVJocDSD-PbX0z32vJR9eEUhB+vsJHbjwnXNcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY8WQVZ0PK1B.19QRO61WBALCP@nmfay.com>
 <CACJufxHTw22kOmmDBpubmju9bfFhonEekwf0s6LGvysbnWEg9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY9RIU0NZPAE.XZOBLKSFPZZB@nmfay.com>
 <CACJufxHqg0xqq=OdfN8Pf0C_hvEf0OSXik_3Yr0-QTAFUuHG=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <f2b5ab0d-324c-4ba9-959e-67420bac7738@eisentraut.org>
 <CACJufxHZuQF8RkHHd83sqAeFvWfbvBysUxzRarAOeYuCi=tTmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1763682.1712090733@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CACJufxGpgsQgnRvcPLczTV1Ak=JS0LmHxWe4q4dv6Qd1tRkQ9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoZYDN7BEQzpanKVvjEK48cn7Rq95_jjn=wTe2gM4-2J5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKFQuwZcJFkmuMHPKnsRhgCx3=WdtSS3T0D+WAEXA7PdYH4ZJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+Tgmoa7tLgrP1bmeWFJFzVeaAYwi6hcSrsjnpQWLcz83SrWSA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
 Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Dian Fay <di@nmfay.com>,
 Jim Nasby <jim.nasby@gmail.com>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
From: Chapman Flack <jcflack@acm.org>
Message-ID: <66450B93.2070904@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 15:22:59 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+Tgmoa7tLgrP1bmeWFJFzVeaAYwi6hcSrsjnpQWLcz83SrWSA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/66450B93.2070904%40acm.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 05/15/24 15:07, Robert Haas wrote:
> is. I believe that if I were reading the documentation, count would be
> clearer to me than N, N would probably still be clear enough, and
> replace_at wouldn't be clear at all. I'd expect replace_at to be a
> character position or something, not an occurrence count.

You've said the magic word. In the analogous (but XQuery-based)
ISO standard regex functions, the argument that does that is identified
with the keyword OCCURRENCE.

What would be wrong with that, for consistency's sake?

Regards,
-Chap