Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #19805, comment 1


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2020-09-15T22:54:40+02:00 (5 years ago)
Author:
Klumbumbus

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #19805, comment 1

    initial v1  
    11from #17296
    22Yes, to be safe we could replace "none" by something like "a_values_that_hopefully_never_appears_in_the_osm_database_:o"
    3 But it would still fail in the osmose interpreter. I guess it does not interpret `a!=b` as presence of `a`?
     3But it would still fail in the osmose interpreter, would it?. ~~I guess it does not interpret `a!=b` as presence of `a`?~~ edit: Too late today. I must think about the meaningfulness of this sentence again tomorrow :)