Skip to content

Conversation

@eemeli
Copy link
Collaborator

@eemeli eemeli commented Mar 25, 2024

Closes #749.
See #716 for context.

@eemeli eemeli added syntax Issues related with syntax or ABNF fast-track Editorial change permitted to use fast-track merge rules formatting Issue pertains to the formatting section of the spec labels Mar 25, 2024
@eemeli eemeli added this to the Technical Preview (CLDR v45) milestone Mar 25, 2024
Copy link
Member

@aphillips aphillips left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A couple of comments.

#### Option Resolution
The result of resolving _option_ values is a mapping of string identifiers to values.
The result of resolving _option_ values is an unordered mapping of string identifiers to values.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This might be too strong. An implementation would not be incorrect to order the options internally--that would be an implementation detail. What's important is that functions cannot count on the ordering or make the ordering significant.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This has that effect. It's still possible for an implementation to use a container that retains order to represent the options, but with this qualifier functions can't rely on that.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm trying to be parsimonious about what we change. The existing text doesn't say anything about order, thus you can't count on it (especially since we disallow ordering elsewhere). But I can live with this.

@eemeli eemeli requested a review from aphillips March 26, 2024 17:11
@aphillips aphillips merged commit f6fb396 into main Mar 26, 2024
@aphillips aphillips deleted the unorder-options branch March 26, 2024 17:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

fast-track Editorial change permitted to use fast-track merge rules formatting Issue pertains to the formatting section of the spec syntax Issues related with syntax or ABNF

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Explicitly say that the order of options has no meaning

5 participants