[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-914?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12629133#action_12629133
]
doronc edited comment on LUCENE-914 at 9/8/08 4:38 AM:
------------------------------------------------------------
{quote}
... else what happens is undefined ...
{quote}
I prefer a clearly defined logic, like the one Yonik gave above:
{code}
skipTo(n) == skipTo (n, max(doc()+1) // assume doc() initialized to -1
{code}
was (Author: doronc):
{quote}
... else what happens is undefined ...
{quote}
I prefer a clearly defined logic, like the one Yonik gave above:
{code}
skipTo(n) == skipTo (n, max(doc()+1) // assume doc() initialized to -1
{code}
If this is agreeable we should check that all tests pass after modifying all
skipTo() implementations accordingly.
> Scorer.skipTo(current) remains on current for some scorers
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-914
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-914
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Search
> Reporter: Doron Cohen
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: lucene-914.patch
>
>
> Background in http://www.nabble.com/scorer.skipTo%28%29-contr-tf3880986.html
> It appears that several scorers do not strictly follow the spec of
> Scorer.skipTo(n), and skip to current location remain in current location
> whereas the spec says: "beyond current".
> We should (probably) either relax the spec or fix the implementations.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
