From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/31504 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai =?iso-8859-1?q?Gro=DFjohann?=) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: example queries for nnir Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:33:19 +0200 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035167906 14447 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 02:38:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 02:38:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org Return-Path: Original-Received: from bart.math.uh.edu (bart.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.48]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39B9ED051E for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:35:15 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by bart.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAC27680; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:34:53 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:33:32 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from mailhost.sclp.com (postfix@sclp3.sclp.com [204.252.123.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA11930 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:33:21 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from waldorf.cs.uni-dortmund.de (waldorf.cs.uni-dortmund.de [129.217.4.42]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE150D051E for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:33:53 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from marcy.cs.uni-dortmund.de (marcy.cs.uni-dortmund.de [129.217.20.159]) by waldorf.cs.uni-dortmund.de with ESMTP id OAA08396; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:33:19 +0200 (MES) Original-Received: from lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de (lucy [129.217.20.160]) by marcy.cs.uni-dortmund.de id OAA29215; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:33:19 +0200 (MET DST) Original-Received: (from grossjoh@localhost) by lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) id OAA30907; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:33:19 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de: grossjoh set sender to Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE using -f Original-To: Harry Putnam In-Reply-To: Harry Putnam's message of "20 Jun 2000 16:32:46 -0700" User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) Emacs/21.0.90 Original-Lines: 68 Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:31504 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:31504 Harry Putnam writes: > Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Gro=DFjohann) writes: >=20 > > This depends on the format file. In a `region...end' stanza, the BOTH > > keyword means that the words are index both in the given field and in > > the global field. If you put LOCAL there, the words are only put into > > the given field, and not in the global field. >=20 > Unless there is the possibility of a `body' field, how can the above > allow a body only search? If you specify the empty line, ie /^$/ as the beginning regexp, and for the end regexp you either use something which never matches (for nnml) or the record separator (/^From /, for nnfolder or mbox files), then you have defined a region which comprises the body of a message. Once you have such a region, you can either put all the words in it into the global field, or into some other field. In both cases, if you want to be able to restrict the search to the body, you should NOT specify another region which puts the words into the global field, or into the other field. My suggestion meant that you put all the words from the body into the global field, and no other words into the global field. Hence searching the global field is the same as searching the body. > > Are you saying that (setq nnir-search-engine 'wais) and (setq > > nnir-search-engine 'imap) is not sufficient and that I should include > > the full list of allowed symbols? >=20 > Very sorry Kai, but I thought we were discussing the opening > comments in nnir.el. Which should probably include the examples you > refer to above. Those that appear in that actual code as documnet > strings. I had not noticed those examples which probably means many > new users would not either. Hm. Okay. I have tried to explicitly include a pointer to the docstrings in the opening comments, but apparently this was not explicit enough. Do you think a wording along the lines of `type C-h v nnir-search-engine RET for more information' would be clear enough? If I were to document the same thing in the opening comments and in the doc strings, chances are that one of them will be obsolete after the next nnir.el changes. Therefore, I prefer not to document the same thing twice. Do you think it would be better to document it twice? What about the newly changed wording in the opening comments? > I think this is a good practice and was only suggesting that any of > the variables discussed in comments should also have any defaults > pointed out. Okay. FWIW, I have tried to make the variable documentation more explicit, too. > I don't see that in the opening comments. The variable documentation > is superb now. I may be all wet thinking these examplse should also > appear there but it seems to follow if it makes sense to have the > discussion in the opening comments. Not a big issue I guess. I have already said why I think it's better not to document the same thing twice... kai --=20 I like BOTH kinds of music.