--- 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 ---