On Tuesday 06 April 2004 18:11, Doug Cutting wrote:I think this is indeed the problem. Currently it always increments the earliest span. Rather I think it should increment the first span, still within slop of the earliest span, that is out of order. So, in your
Yes, when the current match length and slop still allow.
example, when the spans are [w1 w3 w2], it should increment w3, since it's start is zero words after the end of w1 (slop is zero) but it is out of order: w2 is required after w1. I think this rule generalizes to larger queries.
Does this sound right? If so, then I'll try to fix it. I may not get
It sounds right, but I'm not certain whether it generalizes to larger queries.
The question is: could incrementing the earliest span that is out of order, but within allowed the slop, cause the search window to miss the first ordered occurrence with the allowed slop at or after the beginning of the current search window?
I can't answer that question in a few minutes, so I'd rather spend my time on programming the test case for now.
Have you or anyone else had time to think more about this? Does this sound like the appropriate fix?
Doug
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
