>
> As far as a "near" operator, I gave up all hope of adding it to parser.cc
> and would much rather replace the whole mess so we can add "near" in a
> sensible way. (Which may or may not be ParseTree, though you no longer
> voice objections to the scheme.)
>
Sorry. I was out of context. Of course, I was thinking about ParseTree...
or my next contribution 8-).
I just stopped being a pain about operator precedences or n-arities. It was
not the point. The point is, I believe, that the search query framework
should be as independent as possible from the user query language.
Oh, I'm too impatient. Perhaps I shouldn't do it now and here, but I annex
a draft of my concept, in C++ :-). Incomplete, uncommented, doesn't
compile, but I hope more expressive than my English.
Comments?
// Joaquim Sanmarti
// GTD Ingenieria de sistemas y software industrial, S.A.
// c/Rosa Sensat 9-11
// 08005 Barcelona SPAIN
// Tel. +34 93 225 77 00
// Fax. +34 93 225 77 08
// mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
// http://www.gtd.es
qtest.cc
QueryParser.h
Query.h
QueryParser.cc
Query.cc
------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the htdig3-dev mailing list, send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You will receive a message to confirm this.
