Replies: 2 comments
-
I would expect the last one to win - it's essentially what you'd expect if you were to write (in pseudocode)
which suggests we're not doing it right at present! AttributeStore is quite extensively rewritten in #499 so that's probably the code to target. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
Great, thanks! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
For example, is this valid, and is the expected result that last-one-in wins?
I think neither the OMT process.lua nor Shortbread's process.lua do this currently.
Poking about in AttributeStore, it doesn't contemplate that a user would do this, and stores both name pairs. At writing time, I think both get written out in the order of
std::map
's comparator, which results in the lexicographically biggest value winning -- in the above example,Unknown
would be written.I ask because I'm looking at making some changes to AttributeStore and am wondering if I need to preserve this behaviour, or if anything's fair game so long as it doesn't crash.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions