| 1 |
On 04/08/2016 04:33 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/04/16 08:21, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Reverse? You want it to measure dissimilarity? Not sure what you |
| 4 |
>> mean. |
| 5 |
> Sorry, I meant reverse the *docs* to mean "find things that are at |
| 6 |
> least 50% similar" rather than "cut off things that aren't above the |
| 7 |
> 0.5 threshold". I.e. use an inclusive sentence. I feel that this is |
| 8 |
> more clear. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>> I just want it to fail if the input is invalid. |
| 11 |
> Yes, I just realised you checked if it were <=, not just <. I think |
| 12 |
> this is a bad idea. It's easily missed -- I just missed it last time |
| 13 |
> around. I would suggest to make it fail early, rather than set it to |
| 14 |
> 0.0 which you then set to None. Just set it to None immediately. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I've just sent "[PATCH] emerge: add --fuzzy-search and |
| 18 |
--search-similarity (bug 65566)" which hopefully accounts for all of the |
| 19 |
previous feedback. |
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Thanks, |
| 22 |
Zac |
Archives