You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, using comparison operators with unsupported pairs of types raises an exception. E.g. 50 > "a" raises a simfil InvalidOperandsException. It would be more practical, if this operation would simply assume the value undefined. This way, a structure like {a: {x: 50}, x: "a"} (containing ambiguous value types for the same field name) could more easily be matched with a query like **.x > 0.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently, using comparison operators with unsupported pairs of types raises an exception. E.g.
50 > "a"
raises a simfilInvalidOperandsException
. It would be more practical, if this operation would simply assume the valueundefined
. This way, a structure like{a: {x: 50}, x: "a"}
(containing ambiguous value types for the same field name) could more easily be matched with a query like**.x > 0
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: