David Fetter wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 12:02:18PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > Patch removed because we already have this functionality. > > We don't yet have this functionality, as the patch allows for using > second and later regex matches "()" in the replacement pattern. > > The function is misnamed. It should be called regex_replace_all() or > some such, as it violates the principle of least astonishment by > replacing all instances by default. Every other regex replacement > defaults to "replace first," not "replace all." Or maybe it should > take a bool for "replace all," or...? Anyhow, it's worth a discussion > :)
Does anyone want to argue that this additional functionality is significant and deserves its own function or an additional argument to the existing function? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
