Re: add function argument names to regex* functions.

On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 3:01 PM David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this confusion goes to show that replacing N with count doesn't work.
>
> "replace_at" comes to mind as a better name.

I do not agree with that at all. It shows that a literal
search-and-replace changing N to count does not work, but it does not
show that count is a bad name for the concept, and I don't think it
is. I believe that if I were reading the documentation, count would be
clearer to me than N, N would probably still be clear enough, and
replace_at wouldn't be clear at all. I'd expect replace_at to be a
character position or something, not an occurrence count.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com