On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Chris Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> There also seem to be many other duplicates. > >> I also sometimes get the error message: > >> ERROR: no buffer to decompress! > > > > Many dictionaries have duplicate keys with different data. The SWORD > > engine can't handle this. So these need to me merged into a single > > entry, or the SWORD engine needs to be modified to handle it. > > > > I am surprised that you see these, I would have thought that the later > > ones would have replaced the earlier ones in the idx file as the > > module was being written. > > When multiple entries with the same key value are added, they are all > present. Depending on how the binary search algorithm works out, you > could get any of the entries (not necessarily consistently the first or > the last entry added). > > Historically, we've just added a " (2)" after the second instance of a > key, and so forth. We also have the option of concatenating subsequent > identical-key entries to the first, like we do with VerseKey modules.
If the intent is for the second one to be X (2) or similar, then the module should probably be encoded that way. I would be inclined to say that multiple entries with the same key is a bug because it may not appear as the author intended. Do you have any cases where there would be an advantage concatenating entries (is this used for handling verse 3a and 3b or similar in verse keyed modules, or is it something completely different?) Jon _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
