"Leslie P. Polzer" <sky-A/[email protected]> writes: > I still don't get why you want absolute primacy for inline fields.
I copied what I read from the original algorithm, used the tests to check me (changing what there I thought didn't make sense). As with any oral tradition, some things may have been lost in transmission. > Maybe the underlying problem is that we expand mixins and later cannot > decide whether a field comes from a mixin or not? Yes; FOF needs a little nudge saying "here's a mixin called X" before it starts processing the fields therein. I think. More below. > So probably mixins shouldn't be expanded at all but walked by the > renderer later? I don't think so; knowledge about how to expand the fields being factored out of the renderer is one of the greatest benefits of GOVF working as it does, and putting that information in the better-digestible field-info structures. See 1e0df5 for more, especially why the demo will still not do the right thing. The reason the new test does as it does is that proper mixin data in indirect mixins is deleted too early. I think this can be straightforwardly solved with an enhancement to map-expanding-mixin-fields, streaming its results directly to factor-overridden-fields, and having the latter sort elements as they arrive. It would even make GOVF a little faster and memory-lighter, theoretically. I just thought of it 5min ago, so we'll see. -- Sorry but you say Nibiru is a Hoax? Doesnt Exist? So maybe The Sumerian people doesnt exist also! --Anonymous by way of SkI --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
