> On Mar 14, 2025, at 9:27, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Err, what about non-node types? Those'll go to AppendJumble().
>
> I think basically everyone here apart from you is having a hard time
> understanding what additional benefits your counter solution brings
> over just ensuring we always AppendJumble with something, regardless
> of the field's value. I do want to understand what you're concerned
> about but you've demonstrated nothing to us about the "always jumble
> something" idea that breaks. Your example custom function broke that
> rule as it skipped doing anything when "expr->field1 == 0".
Because what I’ve mentioned is the kind of case I’ve wanted as supported when designing this facility, keeping also in
mindthat we may use this stuff for more than just Querys. If you’d rather discard what the argument I’ve done upthread,
well,I guess that you’re free to do so and bypass any comments I have. Now I do think that what’s been sent does not
checkall the boxes if we want a solution other than shifting the fields of a Node.
> Anyway, let's see your patch so we can judge actual code rather than
> waste our time arguing over assumptions about what the hypothetical
> code is and does.
Sure. I’m going to need a few days for that, though :)
—
Michael
