Re: writing new regexp functions

On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 08:56:31PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeremy Drake <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com> writes:
> > I want to ask, should I break with following substring's
> > precedent, and put the pattern first (as most people probably
> > would expect), or should I break with perl's precedent and put the
> > pattern second (to behave like substring)?
>
> All of SQL's pattern match operators have the pattern on the right,
> so my advice is to stick with that and try not to think about Perl
> ;-)

Perl provides inspiration, but here, consistency would help more than
orderly imitation of how it does what it does. And besides, when
people really need Perl, they can pull it in as a PL :)

Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Skype: davidfetter

Remember to vote!