On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:13 PM David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You just broke my brain when you say that you read: > > By default, only the first match of the pattern is replaced. If replace_at > is specified and greater than zero, then the first "replace_at - 1" matches > are skipped before making a single replacement (i.e., the g flag is ignored > when replace_at is specified.) > > And then say: > > I'd expect replace_at to be a character position or something, not an > occurrence count.
Ah. What I meant was: if I just saw the parameter name, and not the documentation, I believe that I would not correctly understand what it did. I would have had to read the docs. Whereas I'm pretty sure at some point years ago, I looked up these functions and I saw "N", and I did understand what that did without needing it explained. If I had seen "count" or "occurrence" I think I would have understood that without further explanation, too. So my point was: to me, N is more self-documenting than replace_at, and less self-documenting than count or occurrence. If your mileage varies on that point, so be it! -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
