On Fri, 30 Aug 2019, Anthony Walter via lazarus wrote:
With regards to duplicate key names, some libraries allow for the same key
to be parsed resulting in multiple child nodes of the same name. Others
throw an exception when parsing an object with a duplicate key name.
The correct way to handle duplicate keys is to overwrite the existing key
when a duplicate is encountered.
There you go. I think the "correct way" is to raise an error;
not to override and thus inadvertently lose previous data.
I won't argue on who is correct, since it is a matter of opinion.
But this is a prime example of 'biased' tests.
You're testing an opinion, not actual functionality.
so IMHO it would be only fair to remove it from your comparison.
For speed & correctness, I repeat my request:
please provide your test code.
Michael.
--
_______________________________________________
lazarus mailing list
lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org
https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
