On 10/08/2015 12:12 PM, Axel Luttgens wrote: > Not that I want to argue for the purpose of arguing, just perhaps for > some kind of feature request I’m currently unable to correctly > formulate.
... > Yes, ultimately, yes. But the verdict depends of how the > juxtaposition of <map1>, <map2>, […] is to be interpreted: union, or > kind of implicit sequential parsing. If the latter, this could appear > as quite restrictive, even unuseful (unless the deliberate purpose is > to avoid someone to shoot in his own foot). I think you want unionmap, a feature that is (I believe) new in 3.0. Have a look at the DATABASE_README for details. This will, of course, mean that you'll have to upgrade to 3.0. Peter
