It looks to me like Revision 1.18 broke it.
On Jun 10, 2004, at 3:26 PM, Erik Hatcher wrote:
On Jun 10, 2004, at 4:07 PM, Terry Steichen wrote:
Well, I'm using 1.4 RC3 and the "null" range upper limit works just fine for
searches in two of my fields; one is in the form of a cannonical date (eg,
20040610) and the other is in the form of a padded word count (e.g., 01500
for 1500). The syntax would be pub_date:[20040501 TO null] (dates later
than April 30, 2004) and s_words:[01000 TO null] (articles with 1000 or more
words).
Ah....
It "works" for you because you have numeric values and lexically "null" is greater than any of them. It is still using it as a lexical term value, and not truly making the end open-ended.
This is why "null" doesn't work at the beginning for you either. It's just being treated as text, just like your numbers are.
PS: This use of "null" has worked this way since at least 1.2. As I recall,
way back when, "null" also worked as the first term limit (but no longer
does).
If so, then something serious broke. I've not the time to check the cvs logs on this, but I cannot imagine that we removed something like this. If anyone cares to dig up the diff where we removed/broke this, I'd be gracious.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
