> Oh, neat. If that actually works in all cases (so also with records of > records, etc)
Well, it almost does. I tried it with records that contain records and that's fine. For records that contain sets, it often works in my testing, but not always, evidently due to the randomized hash keying, since I can make it go away by always loading the same seeds. The same problem occurs with set deletion: deleting from a set of records-containing-sets sometimes fails to delete an element that's indeed in the set. (Hmmm and we also don't support sets of sets, which seems like a natural.) I think the right answer for this is to have some sort of canonical ordering for hash keys. Seems like a pain given the need to also randomize hash keys. I'll file a ticket, but won't aim to fix it this go-around. Vern _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list bro-dev@bro.org http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev