Re: SEARCH by last path segment, Was: SEARCH for displayname

Elias Sinderson wrote:

> 
> What needs to be clarified is the relative ordering of evaluating 
> include and exclude elements of a DASL request. Whereas AND operations 
> are generally unaffected by the order of their evaluation, this fails to 
> hold when you AND together set operations (union, intersection, and the 
> like). If you would like me to provide an example of why this is the 
> case, I'd be happy to...

Elias,

I think the rules we're defining do not depend on evaluation order. 
Rephrasing Martin's definition with set arithmetics:

1) res = all
2) res = all - excluded
3) res = included
4) res = included - excluded

Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760