Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Resolution of ordering conflicts is probably too liberal #53

Open
slarse opened this issue Mar 5, 2020 · 0 comments
Open

Resolution of ordering conflicts is probably too liberal #53

slarse opened this issue Mar 5, 2020 · 0 comments
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@slarse
Copy link
Collaborator

slarse commented Mar 5, 2020

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.

@slarse slarse added the question Further information is requested label Mar 5, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant