2 ms·
May depend on your variation of 'practical', but I have had the opposite experience, and as trivial examples, "+-/" came up with nothing in: https://www.google
by techbio 6y ago
May depend on your variation of 'practical', but I have had the opposite experience, and as trivial examples, "+-/" came up with nothing in:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22%2B-*%2F%22 https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22%2B-...
Likewise no results for "+" "-" "" "/":
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%2B%22+%22-%22+%22*%22+%22%2F%22&oq=%22%2B%22+%22-%22+%22*%22+%22%2F%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%2B%22+%22-%22+%22*%22+%2...
Edit: tried to escape the multiplication symbol/asterisk, but I think the italics speak loud enough on this issue
- TechBro8615 6y agoWhat do you expect for those results though? I think a better example is searching "+= operator python", for which it successfully highlights the "+=" and finds relevant results: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%2B%3D%22+operator+python&oq=%22%2B%3D%22+operator+python&aqs=chrome..69i57.3531j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%2B%3D%22+operator+python...
- techbio 6y agoYou get arguably better results (though mostly the same) if you leave out the '+=': https://www.google.com/search?q=operator+python https://www.google.com/search?q=operator+python Edit: Let me walk that back a little. The highlighting may be helpful in some cases and it follows that the operator search is better than I'd noticed in the past. Still an indexing and security nightmare to have loose user-def'd punctuation running over data. Go Big-G, doing what's hard.