|
|
|
@ -100,14 +100,16 @@ like this:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Ordering
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At compile time, all TOML files are processed in lexicographical filename order.
|
|
|
|
|
So `00-foo.toml` takes precedence over `10-bar.toml`, which takes precedence
|
|
|
|
|
over `20-baz.toml`, and so on. This may be occasionally useful for creating
|
|
|
|
|
high/low priority rules, such as in the aforementioned example of explicitly
|
|
|
|
|
mapping `*.conf` files to unknown.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generally this should not be much of a concern, since rules should be written as
|
|
|
|
|
specifically as possible for each application.
|
|
|
|
|
At compile time, all TOML files applicable to the target are processed in
|
|
|
|
|
lexicographical filename order. So `00-foo.toml` takes precedence over
|
|
|
|
|
`10-bar.toml`, which takes precedence over `20-baz.toml`, and so on. Note that
|
|
|
|
|
**only** the filenames of the TOML files are taken into account; the
|
|
|
|
|
subdirectories they are placed in have no influence on ordering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This behaviour can be occasionally useful for creating high/low priority rules,
|
|
|
|
|
such as in the aforementioned example of explicitly mapping `*.conf` files to
|
|
|
|
|
unknown. Generally this should not be much of a concern though, since rules
|
|
|
|
|
should be written as specifically as possible for each application.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rules within each TOML file are processed (and therefore matched) in the order
|
|
|
|
|
in which they are defined. At runtime, the syntax selection algorithm will
|
|
|
|
|