On 30.01.2010 16:58, Mark Burton wrote:
Hi Steve,
No it was just a mistake, I meant it is as if with_actions is always given - I find the terminology very confusing! I would prefer that continue not change the normal effect of the actions and there be a without_actions (or no_carry_forward or no_propagate which would be more descriptive of what happens) command that prevented the carry forward.
But no, I am not going to change anything unless you all want the change.
Although I "invented" with_actions, I have no problem with you inverting it if you think that would be better.
At the time, it seemed like a reasonable solution to the problem of actions always being executed when using continue.
If you invert it, please do it on style branch only (on trunk only once it is merged). Once style-branch comes, it'll mean a lot of rewriting of rules for me anyhow.
Cheers,
Mark _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev