|-----Original Message----- |From: [email protected] [mailto:ozdotnet- |[email protected]] On Behalf Of silky |Sent: Monday, 17 May 2010 6:26 PM |To: ozDotNet |Subject: Re: Filtering algorithm strategies to mimic intellisense | |On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Bill McCarthy <[email protected]> |wrote: |> Silky: |> I'm really not sure if you are just being argumentative or you failed to |> read what the original request was. Winston pretty clearly stated that he |> was after : |> |> " Filtering is filtered based on a contains for each item. So it's |> essentially mimicing VS2010's contains for intellisense." |> |> In case you don't get that, it's a bit like if there is a display name field |> and someone wants to have the list filtered by those that contain "Smith" |> whether Smith be the suffix or appear *anywhere* in the string. Eg "Jane |> Smith", "Smith, John" etc. | |I did see that, but my reply was based on the following: | |I've never seen VS intellisense *actually* do "contains" checks. Maybe |I missed it, or maybe I never type that way, or maybe it doesn't |actually do it.
There's no "maybe it doesn't do it" silky. You're just being in denial here. It does do it. Open VS2010 like Winston *specifically* stated and open your eyes. For example, type in "stream" You just decided to completely ignore what the requirement was. | Either way, it's not something I cared about, so |implied that it wasn't neccessary :) | IOW: you ignored the requirement. |If it had been a specific requirement to do that, *then* I'd agree |that some sort of other system would be required, I'm not quite sure |what system that would be right now. | Uh huh ....... | |> If you really think that a Trie is the correct approach, then show us your |> code. I doubt very much you can prove your assertion and am happy to bet |you |> won't ;) (name the charity) | |I'd really love to program it up but you couldn't have picked a worse |time of year for it; in just over 1 month I will have time :) | ROFLMAO !!! Man that is so funny. Read above were you admitted you were wrong, and now one paragraph later you are saying you haven't got time right now to back up your previous false assertion. What was that you were earlier implying about *professional* ?????
