On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 08:30:48AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 12:36:29PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > > How is that sane? I'm parsing that as "(foo OR bar OR baz) AND foo", > > which is the same as "(bar OR baz) AND foo", right? > > Err, "(foo OR bar OR baz) AND foo" != "(bar or baz) AND foo", > because it can also be "foo AND foo" (= "foo"). > So essentially it is the same as "foo", bar and baz are irrelevant. Duncan Findlay