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
