On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 9:55 AM jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> wrote: > in the regexp_replace explanation section. > changing "N" to lower-case would be misleading for regexp_replace? > so I choose "count".
I don't see why that would be confusing for regexp_replace specifically, but I think N => count is a reasonable change to make. However, I don't think this quite works:
+ then the <replaceable>count</replaceable>'th match of the pattern
An English speaker is more likely to understand what is meant by "N'th" than what is meant by "count'th". Even if they can guess, it's kinda strange-looking. I think it needs to be rephrased somehow, but I'm not sure exactly how.
I think this confusion goes to show that replacing N with count doesn't work.
"replace_at" comes to mind as a better name.
By default, only the first match of the pattern is replaced. If replace_at is specified and greater than zero, then the first "replace_at - 1" matches are skipped before making a single replacement (i.e., the g flag is ignored when replace_at is specified.)
