Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386 Subject: Re: Permuted indices Message-ID: <7PP4_:9@xds13.ferranti.com> Date: 16 Jul 90 21:22:48 GMT References: <1990Jul08.224741.1366@virtech.uucp> <1990Jul12.044550.19213@ico.isc.com> <1235@s8.Morgan.COM> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Distribution: comp Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 22 In article <1235@s8.Morgan.COM> amull@Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt) writes: > More useful? Not in my experience. A permuted index is a good way to > inflate the number of references you have to read through to get your > hit. How do you get this? It reduces the number of references you have to look up. When I see "trees: 134, 145, 279, 394" I have to look up all four places to be sure I'm not going to miss the reference I need. If it said: looking for files in a directory tree 134 search balanced binary tree 145 diseases apple tree 279 a skunk safely how to tree 394 I know exactly where to go. Are we even referring to the same thing, here? The keyword in context index is so far superior to the conventional index I keep a copy of the *3BSD* manual around so I know I'll be have a usable manual handy. Even for System V it's easier to look things up in the wrong manual, if I don't have the right index! -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180.