Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> Why not? To me it reads as "\g with an x option". The "x" refers to
>> the implied "\x", so it's not an arbitrary choice at all.
> That's not how '\dx' works, as I pointed out, so I don't see having the
> second character being 'x' to imply "\x mode" makes sense.
It is how \d[tisv] works, or the S or + modifiers to \d. If you don't
like the "x" in particular, feel free to propose a different letter that
makes more sense to you --- but I'm pretty convinced that this ought to
be seen as \g-plus-a-modifier.
>> The main problem I see with \G is that it's a dead end. If somebody
>> comes along next year and says "I'd like a variant of \g with some other
>> frammish", what will we do? There are no more case variants to use.
> I don't believe there's any reason to think someone else couldn't come
> along later and add \gq for whatever they want. Simply because we use
> \G for something doesn't mean \g can't ever be further extended.
So at some point we'd be documenting \G as a legacy mysql-compatible
spelling of \gx, because it would become blindingly obvious that it was
a non-orthogonal wart. Let's just skip that phase and get to the
extensible syntax.
regards, tom lane
