The results with or without the crossref keyword are identical. They shouldn't be.
I don't think your second query expresses the problem as it should show just the second term.
The cross-reference field is incompatible with the milestone keyword, so it just gets ignored. Do you think it would be better to show an error?
Do you think it would be better to show an error?
Definitely. Any time the machine thinks it should execute something other than what was asked for, it should generate an error. The alternative of simply ignoring what it doesn't like appears to the user as inconsistent, flakey behavior.
+1 [Y] for showing an error: would rather see red box error than something silently ignored
Keep Smiling [:)]
Yes. As they are incompatible, the parser should indicate that the second keyword is "unexpected" (currently it prefers milestone).
