IMHO, using "cat cat?" or even "cat cat? cat??" is so simple that it doesn't
justify keeping the old, undocumented, arguably incorrect behavior.
Regards,
Tiago Silveira
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Terry Steichen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. Februar 2006 05:10
An:
Tiago Silveira wrote:
IMHO, using "cat cat?" or even "cat cat? cat??" is so simple that it doesn't
justify keeping the old, undocumented, arguably incorrect behavior.
I don't think there's any question of the old behaviour being incorrect
-- the javadoc says that ? matches a single character
Hi guys,
I share same problem, that my czech analyzer has dependency on the
icu4j.
My opinion is to put interface between your code and icu4j. Because new
JDK 1.6 should have more features from icu4j included.
Samphan you can also look at http://getopt.org/stempel/ Stempel
algorithm, even I
Tiago Silveira wrote:
IMHO, using "cat cat?" or even "cat cat? cat??" is so simple that it doesn't
justify keeping the old, undocumented, arguably incorrect behavior.
I have a different view on this issue - IMHO treating "?" as "exactly
one character" is counterintuitive for people familiar
Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
Tiago Silveira wrote:
IMHO, using "cat cat?" or even "cat cat? cat??" is so simple that it
doesn't
justify keeping the old, undocumented, arguably incorrect behavior.
I have a different view on this issue - IMHO treating "?" as "exactly
one character" is counterintu
Hello,
I have integrated your patches for the numeric range searching a few
monthes ago.
We are now in the process of integrating it to our application.
It works fine, but I just ran into what seems to be a bug: searches
using inclusive ranges starting at 0 (example: field=[0 TO 2000]) seem
t
Doug Cutting wrote:
1.9 will be the last 1.x release. It is both back-compatible with
1.4.3 and forward-compatible with the upcoming 2.0 release. Many
methods and classes in 1.4.3 have been deprecated in 1.9 and will be
removed in 2.0. Applications must compile against 1.9 without
deprecati
Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
Tiago Silveira wrote:
IMHO, using "cat cat?" or even "cat cat? cat??" is so simple that it
doesn't
justify keeping the old, undocumented, arguably incorrect behavior.
I have a different view on this issue - IMHO treating "?" as "exactly
one character" is counterint
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
I am wondering what the motivation is for being forward compatible to
2.0. Is the only change from 1.9 to 2.0 going to be the removal of
deprecated items?
Pretty much, yes.
Are we going to be preventing ourselves from making
broader structural changes? My understand
Arguing about this won't change the code. A well-constructed patch
might (but there are no guarantees).
To me, this sounds like an uphill battle. If we want to add a feature
to wildcard 0-N characters at the end of a word, then I don't think we'd
use '?' plus a flag. Rather I think it would
DM Smith wrote:
Personally, I don't want an either/or. I want a both/and. Modern unix
shells provide both/and, albeit with different syntax.
I see this more as a feature request than an argument as to the
usefulness or properness of either. Both are useful. Both are proper.
Both are intuitive
Doug Cutting wrote:
DM Smith wrote:
Personally, I don't want an either/or. I want a both/and. Modern unix
shells provide both/and, albeit with different syntax.
I see this more as a feature request than an argument as to the
usefulness or properness of either. Both are useful. Both are prop
John Haxby wrote:
Doug Cutting wrote:
DM Smith wrote:
Personally, I don't want an either/or. I want a both/and. Modern
unix shells provide both/and, albeit with different syntax.
I see this more as a feature request than an argument as to the
usefulness or properness of either. Both are us
markharw00d wrote:
Further to our discussions some time ago I've had some time to put
together an XML-based query parser with support for many "advanced"
query types not supported in the current Query parser.
More details and code here:
http://www.inperspective.com/lucene/LXQuery2.htm
Mark,
On Feb 22, 2006, at 7:22 AM, John Haxby wrote:
Tiago Silveira wrote:
IMHO, using "cat cat?" or even "cat cat? cat??" is so simple that
it doesn't
justify keeping the old, undocumented, arguably incorrect behavior.
I don't think there's any question of the old behaviour being
incorrect -- t
Hey guys
I got this in my email today, figured someone on this list may find it
interesting. I've never actually worked with this recruiter.
Original Message
Subject:Service Specialist - Pittsburgh, PA
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:00:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Monster <[EMA
Hello Erik,
Monday, September 15, 2003, 4:27:27 PM, you wrote:
EH> On Monday, September 15, 2003, at 09:45 AM, Bruce Ritchie wrote:
>> I would suggest *not* using caching inside of filters provided by
>> lucene but rather provide a wrapper to do the caching. The reason is
>> that some applicat
Hello,
I have one document in the index.
If that document is only renamed but its content is same as before then can
I update the index.
As the Book Lucene in Action says that Lucene doesn't have any thing like
update(...) method. And for updating one need to delete the old document and
add the ne
18 matches
Mail list logo
