lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doug Cutting <cutt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Lucene 1.9 RC1 release available
Date Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:18:11 GMT
Arguing about this won't change the code.  A well-constructed patch 
might (but there are no guarantees).

To me, this sounds like an uphill battle.  If we want to add a feature 
to wildcard 0-N characters at the end of a word, then I don't think we'd 
use '?' plus a flag.  Rather I think it would be better to be explicit 
about it, e.g., "foo?=3" or somesuch.  Such a patch would stand a 
greater chance of being accepted.

Doug

Terry Steichen wrote:
> 1) Having a simple way to match singular and plural forms of a term with 
> a single wildcard expression is quite useful.
> 2) The trailing '?' behavior has been present since that wildcard was 
> first introduced.  Why not provide a flag to allow the original behavior 
> to optionally be preserved?
> 3) The fact that virtually no one objected to the original behavior 
> suggests that few if any were confused by it.
> 
> Chris Hostetter wrote:
> 
>> : In either case, what I'm arguing is that the current behavior makes 
>> more
>> : sense in the real world of query expressions (that is, makes the most
>> : common query expressions simpler), so why not continue it?
>>
>> I disagree with that statment.  People familiar with shell globing are
>> going to be confused if "riot??????????????????????" matches "riot" and
>> "riotXXX".
>>  
>>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message