>Sounds like a good policy. How should we deal with things that have crept
>in? Accept them provisionally, with the understanding that if a better use
>for, e.g., braces, is proposed then the current use is removed?
I think it's wishful thinking to think that we'll be able to do that. No
matter how many times you say "this is temporary", some set of users will
build their system around it and be very vocal when the inevitable change
comes. For stuff that gets exposed to users, like this, its even worse.
I'd recommend backpedaling on the fuzzy and range searches for now, as
they've not yet appeared in a release, and start the discussion period on
them, but I realize that it might even be too late for that.
> > That said, I wouldn't mind seeing a syntax for modifying the
> > slop factor in
> > a phrase query ("Lucene" within 10 words of "search") :)
>
>I agree that this is a big hole in the query language. Any ideas for
>syntax?
We have connectors for OR, AND, and NOT, in caps. One option would be to
add NEAR, and allow the NEAR keyword to take a parameter:
lucene NEAR search
lucene NEAR(5) search
or even
lucene WITHIN 5 OF search
--
Brian Goetz
Quiotix Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 650-843-1300 Fax: 650-324-8032
http://www.quiotix.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
