Re: htdig: Patch for (better) explaining the "not" search-operator, suggestions for fix.


Geoff Hutchison (ghutchis@wso.williams.edu)
Mon, 11 Jan 1999 00:36:25 -0400


At 7:54 PM -0400 1/10/99, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>Is it just me, or is the "boolean"-search operator "not" in
>htsearch confusing?

It's not you. This has come up several times. Jesse op den Brouw, among
others has brought this up.

>I think it is mislabeled; it should be called "without" since

Technically speaking it's "NAND" or "not and" but without is certainly a
better term.

>If it's ok, I would like to submit a patch that adds the word
>"without" as a synonym operator for the current behavior of
>"not", then later hopefully a patch to make "not" valid as an
>unary operator as well as binary (much like minus in arithmetic
>expressions).

Sure. (And why wouldn't it be OK?)

>If it's *not* ok, then at least the patches below to the
>documentation and syntax.html needs to be fixed to mention "not"
>and how it works; there's only a spurious note in RELEASE.html
>that '"and", "or" and "not" [are fixed]'.

They're in the queue.

-Geoff

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the htdig mailing list, send a message to
htdig-request@sdsu.edu containing the single word "unsubscribe" in
the body of the message.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Jan 11 1999 - 07:23:14 PST