: > 3) A _gap_ b _gap_ c _gap_ D ...results in: A _double_gap_ D : > : > ...is that the behavior you are seeing? : > : Almost. The only difference is that case 3 has 3 gaps, so it's A : _triple_gap_ D.
sorry ... brain fart on my part. : 1. My bulk update code was always generating the positionIncrementGap : between all field values, so if there are 4 values it would always : generate 3 gaps independent of whether or not the values generate : This seems a natural behavior and is consistent with the use cases you : describe (which are essentially the same reason I'm using gaps, and : presumably the main purpose of gaps). : Hoss, do you think it would be ok to fix given the potential upward : incompatibility for index-format-dependent implementaitons? it certainly seems like the "right thing to do" to me... i can't think of any cases situations in which clients would be relying on the current behavior. Does anyone else see any reason why the current behavior is usefull? -Hoss --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
