On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Stephan Beal <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Richard Hipp <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It is important to keep the artifact format as simple as possible. And >> "cards are in lexicographical order" is much simpler than "the first two >> fields of cards are in lexicographical order except that if the first >> character of the second field of a J card is + or - or * then that >> character is elided and the comparison occurs on the remaining >> characters". The first rule is way simpler both in statement and in >> implementation. >> > > Just for my own clarification: the +/-/* characters for the various cards > _are_ counted as part of the name for sorting purposes, correct? > All characters are significant. If X and Y are cards in an artifact and X comes before Y then it must be the case that strcmp(X,Y)<0. Note, this also implies that there can be no duplicate cards. > > Now, if there were a compelling reason to go with the more complicated >> rule, we might consider it. But I can think of no good reason to have two >> J cards on the same field in the same artifact as they can be easily >> combined on client side before the artifact is created and there is no good >> reason to allow T cards to be out-of-order as they can be easily sorted by >> the client. >> > > Sorted in what way, though? In Jan's example the keys and timestamps were > identical. Do you means that in such cases the client should sort them > however he likes (e.g. by tag value if it makes sense to do so)? If that's > what you mean, i can't argue against it. > > -- D. Richard Hipp [email protected]
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
