Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 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?
> I'm not very familiar with the use case here. Is there a good reason to want > to abbreviate these names? I think I would expect "ascii", "word", and "token" > for the three categories Tom describes. Please look at the first nine rows of the table here: http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/textsearch-parsers.html It's not clear to me where we'd go with the names for the hyphenated-word and hyphenated-word-part categories. Also, ISTM that we should use related names for these three categories, since they are all considered valid parts of hyphenated words. Another point: "token" is probably unreasonably confusing as a name for a token type. "Is that a token token or a word token?" Maybe "aword", "word", and "numword"? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(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
