On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Austin Clements wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 3:58 AM, Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> wrote: > > Additionally, I'd suggest to support value range queries for dates with > > ".." syntax. Besides that some users may relay on this syntax, I use > > date searches a lot and with custom query parser I have to type > > "after:yesterday", which is unnecessarily long. I wish that > > "yesterday..", which is much easier to type, would do the same. > > Similarly, "mon..wed" would be easier to type than "after:mon > > before:wed". What do you think? > > Personally, I just don't understand the .. range syntax, which is why > I left it out (also, I was following the example in the TODO file). > It's completely inconsistent with the rest of the query syntax and > makes no indication of what it's a range over (what if you had other > ordinal values to search over? what if you could search by the > received date or the sent date?). > > What about something like "date:mon..wed"? That's consistent with the > query syntax (the range part becomes part of the date syntax, not part > of the top-level query syntax), it indicates the domain of the search > term in a clean and extensible way, and it's succinct. Yes, the date prefix with ranges in value sounds reasonable and the word "date" is even shorter than "after" or "before". -Michal