Re: trouble with order rules in implicit rules

[Noel Yap]

Boris Kolpackov wrote:

> Noel Yap <address@hidden> writes:
> > 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.

I just found this in my Inbox so I apologize for the late response.

The above algorithm sounds really good.  May I add that, if two patterns 
somehow have equal weighting with the above algorithm, that the one with the 
smallest stem-length-to-pattern-length-ratio should take precedence?

Even without this addition, though, I'm guessing your proposal will catch 99+% 
of the cases.

Thanks,
Noel