Hello, On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 00:30:04 +0100 Jo <[email protected]> wrote:
> If you want the same level of support in other products, why don't you > implement what has been done in JOSM already? Why is it a problem that > extra functionality is implemented first in JOSM? I do not represent "any other products". The problem is thing do not simply get implemented, the proper way is to decide how to implement them. Without thinking about that it all soon becomes a mess. And a mess it is now. > Do I really have to wait until this has been discussed, before it can > become implemented? On the one hand, that would be good, as it may > mean other people can give their insight on feasibility and how to > best implement it. But apart from this thread, it's rather silent on > this list... Yes, we really do need to discuss things. If JOSM guys came here and said, we want to implement 'in' operation in selectors, and we want to use ~= syntax, I could tell them: why not just call it 'in' how it's done in other languages? Same for ^=, *=, $= — all of them could be implemented with a unified-style glob operation like this: highway *= "foo*" highway *= "*tway" highway *= "*ootwa*" In my opinion, it's much clearer and leaves possibility for other symbols to be used when needed. Actually, the only benefit of this glob-like operation or JOSM-style ^=/*=/$= is that it's usually faster than a regex... Which is basically when you can't precompile a regex beforehand; regexes are usually of the same speed when pre-compiled. Anyway, this is just an example. There are more things, and we could discuss them and find a good consensus. Thought thrives on conflict, you know. -- WBR, Andrew
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Mapcss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/mapcss
