[Digikam-devel] [Bug 179012] advanced search missing negative conditions (changed from 0.9)

Marcel Wiesweg marcel.wiesweg at gmx.de
Mon Dec 29 13:23:24 GMT 2008


Marcel Wiesweg marcel wiesweg gmx de changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |marcel.wiesweg at gmx.de

--- Comment #2 from Marcel Wiesweg <marcel wiesweg gmx de>  2008-12-29 14:23:23 ---
Not allowing "NOT" here was done to limit UI complexity, but I am beginning to
agree with adding some better way to express "NOT", as the discoverability of
the add-second-search-group solution is not good.
If we add an option after the "Match all/Match any" I would prefer it to be
only one.
Any viewpoints on that?

I have a problem here with the language: "Do not match all" can mean "Match
only some".
We have currently:

Match all = A && B && C
Match any = A || B || C

Putting a "NOT" in front of this leads us to logical NAND and NOR.
We can express that in English if there are only two values using deMorgan's
NOT match all = !(A && B) = !A || !B = Either A or B do not match
NOT match any = !(A || B) = !A && !B = Neither A nor B match

But what about n>2?
NOT match all = !(A && ... && Z) = !A || ... || !Z = ?
NOT match any = !(A || ... || Z) = !A && ... && !Z = ?
Which of these is "Do not match any"?

Configure bugmail: http://bugs.kde.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.

More information about the Digikam-devel mailing list