Re: [IndexedDB] .value of no-duplicate cursors

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Jonas Sicking <> wrote:
> The reason I specced it they way I did, with the "lowest" key always
> being used, is that this way a NEXT_NO_DUPLICATE and a
> PREV_NO_DUPLICATE cursor iterate the same entries. It seems unexpected
> that reversing direction would return different results?

I agree.


Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 16:14:28 UTC