From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Apropos commands and regexps Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 07:51:18 +0300 (IDT) Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200205181849.g4IIndH22161@aztec.santafe.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1021784052 1754 127.0.0.1 (19 May 2002 04:54:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 04:54:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 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 179Ihw-0000SB-00 for ; Sun, 19 May 2002 06:54:12 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 179IvE-00061S-00 for ; Sun, 19 May 2002 07:07:57 +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 179Ihx-0006NB-00; Sun, 19 May 2002 00:54:13 -0400 Original-Received: from is.elta.co.il ([199.203.121.2]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 179Igx-0006IO-00; Sun, 19 May 2002 00:53:12 -0400 Original-Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA15240; Sun, 19 May 2002 07:51:19 +0300 (IDT) X-Sender: eliz@is Original-To: Richard Stallman In-Reply-To: <200205181849.g4IIndH22161@aztec.santafe.edu> 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:4109 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:4109 On Sat, 18 May 2002, Richard Stallman wrote: > > I don't like the "and" approach -- at least not as the default. > > I'm afraid anything else will bring too many hits. > > The rule that at least two of the keywords must match > should not bring too many hits, I would think. An example with two words discussed here brought about 70 hits, which IMHO is too many. Moreover, I think a rule based on the number of matched keywords is not good enough, since sometimes even one word is enough to yield a very accurate result. Try "M-x apropos bell RET", for example.