bug-recutils
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[OLLIER Jean-François] Re: [bug-recutils] A new field type?


From: Jose E. Marchesi
Subject: [OLLIER Jean-François] Re: [bug-recutils] A new field type?
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 22:31:08 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.91 (gnu/linux)

Seems that I forgot to reply on-list.

--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: [bug-recutils] A new field type? Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 22:16:44 +0100 User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 07:30:54PM +0100, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> 
> I am reconsidering the usage of compound field names for making
> references.  Your suggestion of using a field type in the record
> descriptor has the advantage of completely separate the "data" records
> from the "metadata".  Much like the rest of the rec spec.  I like it.
> 
> We can reserve the compound field names to implement some other facility
> in the future.
> 
> Something I would change in your suggestion is how the type is used.  I
> prefer to implement something like:
> 
>     %type: maintenance rec Asset
> 
> Note the 'rec' type name.  It is like 'enum' or 'int'. 

I fully agree with this proposal, it removes any ambiguity and the reader 
immediately knows what we talk about and sees what I would call the 'symbolic 
link' to the other record. ( This is my admin-biased point of view ) . My vote 
is yes!
 
> You could even
> define several foreign keys, like in:
> 
>     %type: originator,assignee rec Hacker
>

What about the value of such fields? I can't see any other solution that the 
keys of the appropriate records.

> -- 
> Jose E. Marchesi    address@hidden
> GNU Project         http://www.gnu.org

-- 
Jean-François OLLIER
mailto:address@hidden



--- End Message ---

-- 
Jose E. Marchesi    address@hidden
GNU Project         http://www.gnu.org

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]