[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: trouble with order rules in implicit rules
From: |
Boris Kolpackov |
Subject: |
Re: trouble with order rules in implicit rules |
Date: |
Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:32:43 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
nn/6.6.5+RFC1522 |
Noel Yap <address@hidden> writes:
> > I am planning to implement a "shortest stem" matching for equally
> > applicable implicit rules. Do you think that would be good definition
> > of a "better-matching"?
>
> How is "shortest stem" defined?
Literally. Here is the algorithm I have in mind:
1. For each otherwise equally applicable implicit rule extract the
stem (i.e. what % matched).
2. Find the shortest stem and use corresponding rule.
This would mean that the most "specialized" or "restricted" rule will
be used which is what you usually want. For example:
/foo/%:
/foo/bar/%:
When you try to match "/foo/bar/baz" against those rules the second
one is chosen.
hth,
-boris