From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: Apropos commands and regexps
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 09:31:55 +0300
Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org
Message-ID: <8962-Sat18May2002093154+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020512082732.329E-100000@is>
	<5xbsbj9834.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk>
	<200205150700.g4F70rr16163@aztec.santafe.edu>
	<87ptzxmz7s.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp>
	<5xoffhoywn.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk>
	<buoy9ekubkz.fsf@mcspd15.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp>
	<5xg00r4tlo.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk>
	<87sn4rdabb.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp>
	<5xznyy8mlq.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk>
Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1021703761 13744 127.0.0.1 (18 May 2002 06:36:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 06:36:01 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Return-path: <emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian))
	id 178xov-0003ZN-00
	for <emacs-devel@main.gmane.org>; Sat, 18 May 2002 08:36:01 +0200
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164])
	by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 178y1m-0008Jg-00
	for <emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org>; Sat, 18 May 2002 08:49:18 +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 178xpC-0007YT-00; Sat, 18 May 2002 02:36:18 -0400
Original-Received: from frigg.inter.net.il ([192.114.186.16])
	by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian))
	id 178xn3-0007Co-00
	for <emacs-devel@gnu.org>; Sat, 18 May 2002 02:34:05 -0400
Original-Received: from Zaretsky ([80.230.2.40])
	by frigg.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.1.0.54-GA)
	with ESMTP id BLB31984;
	Sat, 18 May 2002 09:33:22 +0300 (IDT)
Original-To: storm@cua.dk
X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-Reply-To: <5xznyy8mlq.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> (storm@cua.dk)
Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Emacs development discussions. <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel/>
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:4079
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:4079

> From: storm@cua.dk
> Date: 17 May 2002 23:56:33 +0200
> 
> 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...

FWIW, I think both 67 and 74 hits are too much.  It takes too much
time to wade through such a long list; many users will give up before
they get to the end.

I think we need to find some way to make the search more efficient
than that.