I'd like to learn more about a use case that would demonstrate the need. I think in particular it could complicate the already nasty task of building tree'd legends from mapfiles. One idea might be to treat the group property as a regex instead of straight text. So you'd do:
GROUP 'somegroup1|somegroup2' or GROUP /somegroup1|somegroup2/ or something like that. That could cause some funky problems in cases where folks had group names that were substrings of one another. Steve >>> Jacolin Yves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/04/07 3:06 AM >>> Hi Steve, Thanks. Is it possible to add this as a new feature? Do you think it could be interesting for everyone? Regards, Y. Le Wednesday 03 October 2007 21:35:46 Steve Lime, vous avez écrit : > It is not possible for a layer to be in more than one group. You could > duplicate the layer and assign each copy to a group. If the groups are > otherwise mutually exclusive then you wouldn't have the duplicate layers > being drawn twice. > > Steve > > >>> On 10/3/2007 at 9:54 AM, in message > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > Jacolin Yves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Is it possible to define two group in the GROUP parameter something like > > this: > > > > LAYER > > ... > > GROUP group1,group2 > > ... > > END > > > > Thanks, > > > > In case I can not use more than one group, do you know a workaround to do > > it? > > > > Best regards, > > > > Y. > > -- > > Yves Jacolin > > --- > > http://softlibre.gloobe.org -- Yves Jacolin --- http://softlibre.gloobe.org
