Re: SMSI -- a [notfound] context?

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2002


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 41124
interpreted = N
texte = O.K., don't mean to be a deviant from the status quoe here (and I could just be missing something (wouldn't be the first time)) but wouldn't Scotts example be redundant in a way? can't a person do a search on records for the unmatched already? One can search for just about anything.I think the value of manipulating unmatched records is also having the matched [founditems] records???So [search db=] [founditems][founditems] [unmatched][unmatched] [/search]would give more ability than [search db=&unmatched=T] [founditems][/founditems] [/search]Granted, I don't what kind of performance problems the extra loop in the search context could give.Just some thoughts. DonovanScott Anderson wrote:> This would be fairly easy to implement. But it should probably be qualified > by a new [search] parameter....[Search db=......&Unmatched=T] then instead > of a new [NotFound] context, just use the existing [FoundItems] context to > display the 'UnMatched' records. This way, other search attributes and > aggregates could still be applied. > > Thanks for the suggestion. > > Anyone else who is interested in this feature, please 'speak up'. > >-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------<><> Donovan Brooke <><>->ï ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/ Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: SMSI -- a [notfound] context? (Donovan 2002)
  2. Re: SMSI -- a [notfound] context? (Kenneth Grome 2002)
  3. Re: SMSI -- a [notfound] context? (Aaron Lynch 2002)
  4. Re: SMSI -- a [notfound] context? (Stuart Tremain 2002)
  5. Re: SMSI -- a [notfound] context? (Alex McCombie 2002)
  6. Re: SMSI -- a [notfound] context? (Scott Anderson 2002)
  7. Re: SMSI -- a [notfound] context? (John Peacock 2002)
  8. Re: SMSI -- a [notfound] context? (Gary Krockover 2002)
  9. Re: SMSI -- a [notfound] context? (Clayton Randall 2002)
  10. Re: SMSI -- a [notfound] context? (Larry Goodhew 2002)
  11. Re: SMSI -- a [notfound] context? (Scott Anderson 2002)
  12. Re: SMSI -- a [notfound] context? (Tim Robinson 2002)
  13. SMSI -- a [notfound] context? (Kenneth Grome 2002)
O.K., don't mean to be a deviant from the status quoe here (and I could just be missing something (wouldn't be the first time)) but wouldn't Scotts example be redundant in a way? can't a person do a search on records for the unmatched already? One can search for just about anything.I think the value of manipulating unmatched records is also having the matched [founditems] records???So [search db=] [founditems][founditems] [unmatched][unmatched] [/search]would give more ability than [search db=&unmatched=T] [founditems][/founditems] [/search]Granted, I don't what kind of performance problems the extra loop in the search context could give.Just some thoughts. DonovanScott Anderson wrote:> This would be fairly easy to implement. But it should probably be qualified > by a new [search] parameter....[Search db=......&Unmatched=T] then instead > of a new [NotFound] context, just use the existing [founditems] context to > display the 'UnMatched' records. This way, other search attributes and > aggregates could still be applied. > > Thanks for the suggestion. > > Anyone else who is interested in this feature, please 'speak up'. > >-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------<><> Donovan Brooke <><>->ï ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/ Donovan

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

redirect within the ErrorMessages.db (2003) WebCat2 - Getting to the browser's username/password data (1997) [Summary] re: Emailer setup (1997) Search results templates (1996) Email (2000) WebCatb15 Mac CGI -- [purchase] (1997) Personal Web Server combined with Webcatalog 2.1 (1998) [WebDNA] [hideif]'s not working in [sendmail] (2008) Archive Problem (2000) RE: New WebCatalog Version !!! (1997) WebCatalog2 Feature Feedback (1996) [WebDNA] exemple of [arrayset] & [arrayget] (2012) WebCat2 beta FTP site (1997) PSC recommends what date format yr 2000??? (1997) Saving Text Areas with Orders (1997) Mac: LModelDirector bug fix (1997) Product Name in AdminResults.inc (2001) Problems reading files created by WC (1997) WebCat2 beta 11 - new prefs ... (1997) searching by date (1998)