On 07/15/24 10:46, Chapman Flack wrote:
> Ah, I may have mistaken which functions the patch meant to apply to.
> ...
> Any choice to use similar argument names in the regexp_* functions would
> be a matter of consistency with the analogous ISO functions, not anything
> mandated.
Or, looking back, I might have realized these were the non-ISO regexp_*
functions, but seen there was bikeshedding happening over the best name
to use for the occurrence argument, and merely suggested ISO's choice
OCCURRENCE for the analogous ISO functions, as a possible bikeshed
accelerator.
Regards,
-Chap