Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > >> ISTM that perhaps a more generally useful definition would be >> >> lword Only ASCII letters >> nlword Entirely letters per iswalpha(), but not lword >> word Entirely alphanumeric per iswalnum(), but not nlword >> (hence, includes at least one digit) > ... > I am not sure if there are any western european languages were words can > only be formed with non-ascii chars.
There is at least in Swedish: "ö" (island) and å (river). They're both a bit special because they're just one letter each. > lword Entirely letters per iswalpha, with at least one ASCII > nlword Entirely letters per iswalpha > word Entirely alphanumeric per iswalnum, but not nlword I don't like this categorization much more than the original. The distinction between lword and nlword is useless for most European languages. I suppose that Tom's argument that it's useful to distinguish words made of purely ASCII characters in computer-oriented stuff is valid, though I can't immediately think of a use case. For things like parsing a programming language, that's not really enough, so you'd probably end up writing your own parser anyway. I'm also not clear what the use case for the distinction between words with digits or not is. I don't think there's any natural languages where a word can contain digits, so it must be a computer-oriented thing as well. I like the "aword" name more than "lword", BTW. If we change the meaning of the classes, surely we can change the name as well, right? Note that the default parser is useless for languages like Japanese, where words are not separated by whitespace, anyway. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
