On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 02:59:06AM -0000, gboutwel wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 03:48:04AM +0100, peter green wrote:
> > > that could break stuff a lot for exsiting users
> > > what about checking for an exact match first and then going in
> > for the substring matching if there are no exact matches?
> >
> > Right. That's better.
>
> Doesn't this apply to TAP too? Last I looked they code and
> the matching is basically the same. Why hasn't this come up
> with TAP? If it has, how was it solved for TAP? If not, then
> I should probably make the same fix for TAP.
Yes, it applies to TAP too.
> Anyways, I was thing that instead of breaking out of the loop
> when I find an partial match, I'd keep going through the loop,
> checking each item with an full string match, if that is sucessfull
> then over-ride the partial match that's found, otherwise go with
> the first partial match. Basically, it'd go with the first partial,
> unless an exact match was found. And it'd only go through the
> loop once, instead of twice.
Okay, sounds good to me.
--
Dan Aloni
da...@co...
|