On 7/26/06, LeVan,Ralph <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> If = and == are very different, then I would strongly vote that == not
> be used.  I've spent too much of my programming life tracking down the
> results of accidentally using one instead of the other.  It is a common
> typo.

I agree and prefer 'eq' to '=='.

I have no problem with '=' replacing 'scr'.

-Ross.

>
> Ralph
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:11 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: CQL relations in 1.2
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, LeVan,Ralph wrote:
> >
> > >> >If "exact" is deprecated, what is the preferred way to do string
> > >> >searches?
> > >> eq. Potentially renamed: ==
> > >I thought that was the replacement for scr.
> >
> > * scr becomes =
> > * = (as adjacency/phrase search) becomes adj
> > * = (as numeric equality) becomes eq (or ==, or somethingElseNew)
> >
> > exact then has no reason to exist, as it's subsumed into the new
> > equality relation.  The new equality relation could be called 'exact',
> > but I think that's even more confusing than a new name as the
> semantics
> > are different.
> >
> >
> > Rob
>
>