Imagine a tool with a repeat statement like:
<repeat name="rinst" title="Repeat Parameter">
<param name="int_param" type="integer" value="1" />
<param name="float_param" type="float" value="2.0" />
</repeat>
3 test instances overidding int_param default in all three, but leaving the float_param default in place for the first and last can specified as follows:
<param name="rinst_0|int_param" value="4" />
<param name="rinst_1|int_param" value="5" />
<param name="rtnst_2|int_param" value="6" />
<param name="rinst_1|float_param" value="4.0" />
This syntax can be mixed and matched with specifing conditionals and nested repeats, etc....
One could imagine an alternative syntax like:
<param name="rinst|int_param" value="4" />
<param name="rinst|int_param" value="5" />
<param name="rtnst|int_param" value="6" />
<param name="rinst|float_param" value="4.0" />
Upon consideration, I have determined that this ambigious syntax is more difficult to reason about, leaves so much ambigiouity in place especially in the context of default and nested elements, and is harder to support. So the plan is to not support it at this time.
The following changeset will add "the right" way to do this anyway:
<repeat name="rinst">
<param name="rinst|int_param" value="4" />
</repeat>
<repeat name="rinst">
<param name="rinst|int_param" value="5" />
<param name="rinst|float_param" value="4.0" />
</repeat>
<repeat name="rinst">
<param name="rinst|int_param" value="6" />
</repeat>
Nicola Soranzo