So, your suggestion at the end, is better avoid doing that at all.
Now I was very happy to have it working. The only issue I found was on the
order declaring classes. I think maybe they should try to fix this, because
you can make more powerful and automated declarations this way.
Thanks a lot al
On 02/26/2013 03:04 PM, jcbollinger wrote:
> Oh, I agree. I don't know whether you followed the whole thread, but my
> recommendation was always to solve the issue in a way that was
> independent of parse order. I suggested two general approaches to the
> problem and one specific implementation.
On Monday, February 25, 2013 6:51:10 AM UTC-6, Felix.Frank wrote:
>
> On 02/22/2013 07:19 PM, jcbollinger wrote:
> > So finally my conclusion is that when you declase a node, includes
> > order matters.
> >
> >
> > Yes, it does.
>
> ...but I'd argue that this should not be your fina
Felix,
Thanks for your tips.
2013/2/25 Felix Frank
> On 02/22/2013 07:19 PM, jcbollinger wrote:
> > So finally my conclusion is that when you declase a node, includes
> > order matters.
> >
> >
> > Yes, it does.
>
> ...but I'd argue that this should not be your final conclusion.
>
> It
On 02/22/2013 07:19 PM, jcbollinger wrote:
> So finally my conclusion is that when you declase a node, includes
> order matters.
>
>
> Yes, it does.
...but I'd argue that this should not be your final conclusion.
It has been my experience (but this may be a question of manifest
culture)
