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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
