> Thanks for the feedback on why the NEAR operator was not yet incorporated. I > didn't understand all the issues for not using the NEAR operator. For my > purposes, I am fine with these limitations and describe them in the search > documentation.
Right, but we have to be extra careful with the syntax for the query parser, as it is exposed to users who don't even know what Lucene is, let alone having read the docs. We're designing for typical users here, not programmers. > However, as a potential solution, what do people think about a multi-level > slop functionality? That is having the slop really be an array of distances > between terms. > > So "foo bar" NEAR3 "unga bunga" would be translated into > > Foo within 1 of bar within 3 of unga within 1 of bunga. > > This would become a single phrase query, but the "slop" would be variable > between each word. That's OK when everthing is a term. What about Foo* NEAR Bar We'd need to elevate the concept of 'slop' up the query hierarchy so you could apply slop to arbitrary queries. Doug, is that practical? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
