On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 04:19:15PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Deven T. Corzine writes:
> > I haven't even SEEN an example where the current behavior is actually
> > preferable than my proposed behavior, have you? (And I'd expect at least a
> > FEW, though I suspect there are probably more counterexamples.)
>
> I think the biggest problem with your idea is that it requires the
> engine to keep looking even after it finds a match, to see if there's
> another shorter match. This would make *every* match much much
> slower, potentially heatdeathoftheuniverse slower.
Couldn't the be an option (a modifier) to do this? Then if someone
asks to wait until all the electrons spin down, so be it...
> I like the current semantics because it's very easy to visualize the
> engine acting on your instructions and stopping as soon as it finds a
> match. I am a programmer, and I prefer programs to descriptions.
>
> Nat
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
