On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:25 PM, <xavier.reportbug-debian.zim.albert.2010.04.20.22.18...@pecos.8d.com> wrote: > On 2010.05.03 15:54:04 EDT, Jaap Karssenberg wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:26 AM, xavier >> <xavier.reportbug-debian.zim.albert.2010.04.20.22.18...@pecos.8d.com> >> wrote: >> > in search, you can search for partial words, like *3005* >> > when you go the page where it found P3005x, it can not find it, >> > since the find box reads *3005*, and it does not match P3005x. >> > >> > i think the correct way to do it is to do partial match from the search >> > box. >> > 3005 will match p3005x, no need to add * at each end. then it will >> > translate >> > to 3005 in the find box, which will match again and correctly p3005x >> >> The request as such will be a "won't fix". However will make sure the >> "*" are stripped when text is transferred from search to the find box. > > > the best would be consitent search pattern at both places, > > if i search "power *r" it will find pages with power bar > i dont think there is a pattern that can do the job, in the find box.
Well, find and search have different usage patterns, so I don't want to force consistency if it reduces the usability. For search the simple case is where you look for whole words, partial matches are the exception. For find, since it finds incremental while you type the default case is a partial match. Of course there could be an option in find to allow patterns like supported in search but that will not be the end of it. E.g. if I type two words in search it will search pages containing both words, if I do the same in find it will match a literal string with a space in it. In short, search and find are not the same thing. Consistency is good, but not always practical. Regards, Jaap -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
