On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:21 AM Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
> new patch attached
Thanks for taking some of my previous review comments.
I have re-checked the string_to_table_20200820.patch.
Below are some remaining questions/comments:
====
COMMENT (help text)
+ Splits the <parameter>string</parameter> at occurrences
+ of <parameter>delimiter</parameter> and forms the remaining data
+ into a <type>text</type> tavke.
What did you mean by "remaining" in that description?
It gets a bit strange thinking about remaining NULLs, or remaining
empty strings.
Why not just say "... and forms the data into a <type>text</type> table."
---
+ Splits the <parameter>string</parameter> at occurrences
+ of <parameter>delimiter</parameter> and forms the remaining data
+ into a <type>text</type> tavke.
Typo: "tavke." -> "table."
====
COMMENT (help text reference to regexp_split_to_table)
+ input <parameter>string</parameter> can be done by function
+ <function>regexp_split_to_table</function> (see <xref
linkend="functions-posix-regexp"/>).
+ </para>
In the previous review I suggested adding a reference to the
regexp_split_to_table function.
A hyperlink would be a bonus, but maybe it is not possible.
The hyperlink added in the latest patch is to page for POSIX Regular
Expressions, which doesn't seem appropriate.
====
QUESTION (test cases)
Thanks for merging lots of my additional test cases!
Actually, the previous PDF I sent was 2 pages long but you only merged
the tests of page 1.
I wondered was it accidental to omit all those 2nd page tests?
====
QUESTION (function name?)
I noticed that ALL current string functions that use delimiters have
the word "split" in their name.
e.g.
* regexp_split_to_array
* regexp_split_to_table
* split_part
But "string_to_table" is not following this pattern.
Maybe a different choice of function name would be more consistent
with what is already there?
e.g. split_to_table, string_split_to_table, etc.
====
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
