On 7/8/05, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If we're going to reorder things for the user, > > it does need to happen in a predictable way, even if it's not correct > > 100% of the time. I find your tree to be pretty complex (that could > > be because I don't understand the reasoning for the ordering > > decisions). I'd prefer something more like: > > > > 1. Constants > > 2. Junctions / Ranges > > 3. Regexes > > 4. Codeblocks > > This is pretty match the same as what I proposed... > > The sub points are usually clarifications, not a tree.... Did you > actually read it?
I suppose I was mostly commenting on the junctions part. I'm proposing that All Junctions Are Created Equal. That is, there is no specificity measuring on junctions. I also didn't really understand your right-angle-tree-ratio measure. Does it have a name, and is there a mathematical reason that you chose it? Anyway, I think that once we start diving inside expressions to measure their specificity, we've gotten too complex to be predictable. Luke
