On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, Gilles Detillieux wrote:
> I assume the comment above it was written before the anchor stuff
> was put in. Now, it's not a horrible chance, but a normal occurrence.
> It seems to me, though, that it shouldn't simply take the minimum anchor,
> as it would allow the description text in the index page to override
> the anchor in the actual document.
That comment was put in before the anchors were actually displayed in
htsearch. It's not a "horrible chance" but it is more work... It's much
better when it doesn't happen. :-)
> Shouldn't the test be:
>
> if (wr.anchor > 0 && wr.anchor < last_wr.anchor
> || last_wr.anchor == 0)
> last_wr.anchor = wr.anchor;
Yes, this is a better test, I forgot the anchor = 0 case. Shame on me.
> Is this assumption correct? What about in the case of an update dig,
> where for example the word VNC is added to 98-99.html before any anchors?
> My understanding is that a modified document will be assigned a new
> document ID, but what happens to all the description word records that
> point to the old document ID? Have I opened a can of worms here?
I believe this is a can of worms. However, all that talk about new
database requirements a week or so ago was meant to give inspiration for
rewriting all of this and avoiding such problems! I do have a good plan
for a backend that does everything we wanted, but at the moment I'm just
swamped--midterms are here... If anyone wants to help, I'll be glad to
post a fairly detailed sketch of the plan.
-Geoff Hutchison
Williams Students Online
http://wso.williams.edu/
------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the htdig3-dev mailing list, send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the single word "unsubscribe" in
the SUBJECT of the message.
