Re: repeated_contains - intended behaviour?

I think we should get rid of repeated_contains, and instead have a set of boolean functions that operate on repeated types. For every boolean function, there would be 2 corresponding boolean functions which operate on repeated types. the "any" version would return true if the corresponding

Re: repeated_contains - intended behaviour?

Repated_contains originally worked as Jason describes, exact matching. At some point, someone thought that it should allow wildcards and do substring matching. There was never any real discussion on what this function should do, though. It would probably be a good idea for someone to come up with

Re: repeated_contains - intended behaviour?

Hi, For me the wild card functionality is fine and functions as expected. It's partly because of it that I expected an exact match when no operator was in play. Regards, -Stefan On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Steven Phillips wrote: > Repated_contains originally worked as

Re: repeated_contains - intended behaviour?

I think it is reasonable to consider that a bug. We should implement the function both as it works today and as you were originally expecting it. Any ideas about about a good naming scheme for the two? Unfortunately the regular contains() method does substring matching, but I think the name