From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Apropos commands and regexps Date: 17 May 2002 23:56:33 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <5xznyy8mlq.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> References: <5xbsbj9834.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <200205150700.g4F70rr16163@aztec.santafe.edu> <87ptzxmz7s.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> <5xoffhoywn.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <5xg00r4tlo.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <87sn4rdabb.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1021669015 5087 127.0.0.1 (17 May 2002 20:56:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 20:56:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, eliz@is.elta.co.il, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 178omV-0001Jw-00 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 22:56:55 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 178oz9-0003pN-00 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 23:09:59 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 178oml-00036l-00; Fri, 17 May 2002 16:57:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.filanet.dk ([195.215.206.179]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 178olT-000351-00; Fri, 17 May 2002 16:55:51 -0400 Original-Received: from kfs2.cua.dk.cua.dk (unknown [10.1.82.3]) by mail.filanet.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 3692A7C016; Fri, 17 May 2002 20:55:49 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: Miles Bader In-Reply-To: <87sn4rdabb.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> Original-Lines: 22 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2.50 Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:4073 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:4073 Miles Bader writes: > `or' is clearly wrong; even in emacs' `limited' universe, it generates > way too many hits. > > E.g., (apropos "\\(find.*file\\|file.*find\\)") gets about 50 hits, > whereas (apropos "\\(find\\|file\\)") gets over 700! Actually your first example finds 67 matches on my emacs. Your second example is an unfair comparison, as my proposal was that at least two matching words should be required. This can be illustrated by (apropos "\\(find\\|file\\).*\\(find\\|file\\)") which finds 74 hits. So I don't see the big difference... The reason there are a few more matches with the second pattern is that it also finds entries with either word occurring twice. But I never claimed my sample implementation is perfect :-) -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk