Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > (IMO, [AWL] should be off by default to maintain consistency with past > versions, but it's not)
Yeah, that would be more consistent, but my inclination is that we should put our best foot forward by default and the AWL *does* improve accuracy. Of course, the AWL algorithm could be better (adding a decay is on my list of things to try). Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
