Hi Andrzej,
well, my problem is the possible misinterpretation caused by ambiguity caused
by the if-then interpretation,
but I think I have found a possible solution.
Let's look at some rules for boundaries in the default style:
v1)
boundary=administrative { name '${mkgmap:boundary_name}' }
boundary=administrative & admin_level<3 [0x1e resolution 12]
boundary=administrative & admin_level<5 [0x1d resolution 19]
boundary=administrative & admin_level<7 [0x1c resolution 21]
boundary=administrative & admin_level<9 [0x1c resolution 22]
boundary=administrative [0x1c resolution 22]
We said we want to be able to use if-then like this:
v2)
if (boundary=administrative ) then
{ name '${mkgmap:boundary_name}' }
admin_level<3 [0x1e resolution 12]
admin_level<5 [0x1d resolution 19]
admin_level<7 [0x1c resolution 21]
admin_level<9 [0x1c resolution 22]
[0x1c resolution 22]
end
With r3838 this did not work, because the each rule needs an expression.
Ticker suggested to add a dummy expression like 1=1 so we would write
v3)
if (boundary=administrative ) then
1=1 { name '${mkgmap:boundary_name}' }
admin_level<3 [0x1e resolution 12]
admin_level<5 [0x1d resolution 19]
admin_level<7 [0x1c resolution 21]
admin_level<9 [0x1c resolution 22]
1=1 [0x1c resolution 22]
end
but this is also not working as 1=1 is interpreted as $1='1' instead of "true"
Now I noticed that the scanner allows to use () as an empty expression.
So instead of v1 one already can write
v4)
if (boundary=administrative ) then
() { name '${mkgmap:boundary_name}' }
admin_level<3 [0x1e resolution 12]
admin_level<5 [0x1d resolution 19]
admin_level<7 [0x1c resolution 21]
admin_level<9 [0x1c resolution 22]
() [0x1c resolution 22]
end
If we document this we no longer have a problem with the "one expression two
objects" syntax like this:
a=b [0xc ... resolution 24][0x10801 resolution 24]
because we still say that a rule must start with an expression and mkgmap can
automaticalyl
add "continue" or "continue with_actions" for all but the last type defintion.
If you don't like the () 'trick' I can again try to make a style function like
true() work.
Gerd
________________________________________
Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-boun...@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Andrzej
Popowski <po...@poczta.onet.pl>
Gesendet: Freitag, 10. März 2017 20:14:49
An: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] if-then-else in style and style options
Hi Gerd,
my idea was more simple, than your implementation. I just would like to
create multiple map objects with single rule. I didn't put "continue"
there, because I assumed, that all element type definition should be
processed.
Still "continue" could be applied, it would mean, that OSM object is
processed further, possibly resulting in 3-rd map object or more. I
think "continue" or "continue with_actions" could be added to last type
definition.
Any other more complicated rules, like adding actions after first type
definition, could be written just like now, with multiple statements.
While I appreciate more flexibility I'm afraid, it could clutter the style.
--
Best regards,
Andrzej
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
