You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Right now, all type members are considered unordered. This isn't actually the case as fields may have dependencies on other fields, and so their order does matter.
Really, an ordering conflict can only be trivially automatically resolved if at most one of the conflicting node lists contains fields. If both contain fields, one has to analyze the dependencies between these fields.
It will probably work out quite often in practice regardless, but it would be better if fields were treated with more care.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Right now, all type members are considered unordered. This isn't actually the case as fields may have dependencies on other fields, and so their order does matter.
Really, an ordering conflict can only be trivially automatically resolved if at most one of the conflicting node lists contains fields. If both contain fields, one has to analyze the dependencies between these fields.
It will probably work out quite often in practice regardless, but it would be better if fields were treated with more care.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: