just to make sure i understand, you are basically proposing that /a/b* would be
used to match /a/b/ and not /a/b/* would not. is in other words, /* does not
match / is this correct?
b
Michiharu Kudoh wrote:
>
>
>
> I have a question on url-match function proposed by Tim.
> (I would prefer uri-match to url-match though)
> According to his proposal, is the following correct?
>
> 1st arg 2nd arg result
> /a/b /a/b match
> /a/b /a no match
> /a/b/* /a/b no match
> /a/b/* /a/b/ match
> /a/b/* /a/b/c match
> /a/b/* /a/b/c/d match
>
> IMO, /a/b/* should match only to e.g. /a/b/c and /a/b/d.
>
> So I would like to propose another URI mapping that addresses
> hierarchical structure.
> For example, / matches any paths such as /a, /a/b.
> /a matches any paths that starts with /a. So /a matches
> /a, /a/b, /a/b/c, /a/d etc.
> Since the path specified as the first argument always propagates
> through the hierarchy, the function might be called as
> "uri-match-with-propagation".
>
> Best
> Michiharu
