[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-pim
Subject:    Re: [Kde-pim] KMail addressee completion
From:       Ingo =?iso-8859-15?q?Kl=F6cker?= <kloecker () kde ! org>
Date:       2011-11-03 20:01:59
Message-ID: 201111032102.00043 () thufir ! ingo-kloecker ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Thursday 03 November 2011, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> On Thursday 03 November 2011 09.57:44 Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> > On Wednesday 02 November 2011 22.01:10 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > > AFAIK this is by design. The disadvantages of arbitrary substring
> > > matches (e.g. a long list of mostly irrelevant matches) outnumber
> > > the advantages.
> > 
> > I wonder.
> > 
> > When I try to send email to someone, say, Thomas Müller, I'd like
> > "Müller" to actually find him, same as Thomas. Right now neither
> > does, because he happens to have a PhD, so his full name is "Dr.
> > Thomas Müller".

In this case all you need is matching on word boundaries. I fully agree 
that this should work. But if you want to send a message to Oma then you 
problably do not want Dr. Thomas Müller to match.


> Darn. False positive on key-binding.

Huh?


> Anyhow: I think it is worth to discuss what matching rules make
> sense, because I agree with others who have voiced they find the
> current ones suboptimal.

Sure. In my opinion there's a whole zoo of matching rules that are way 
more valuable than arbitrary substring matching. For example, phonetic 
matching (Meyer=Meier=Mayer=...). Or a bit of typo resistance by adding 
a Levenshtein distance threshold.


Regards,
Ingo

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
KDE PIM mailing list kde-pim@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-pim
KDE PIM home page at http://pim.kde.org/

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]