[ibis-editorial] Re: Issue on IBIS 5.1 AMI_Version type

All:

 

I favor keeping AMI_Version as a Striing.  In fact it is an

enumerated string with only "5.1" as acceptable so far.

 

Like standard IBIS with just enumerated [IBIS Ver] arguments,

5.10 or "5.10" would be rejected.

 

If AMI_Version were Type Float, we would have to reject

all variations such as 5.100, 5.1e0, 51e-1, etc.

 

"Greater" can be replaced with a "higher (in future releases)"

it should be self from the enumerated values that subsequent

versions will be higher than earlier versions by some easily

testable method or just by enumeration.

 

Bob

 

From: ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:19 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Re: Issue on IBIS 5.1 AMI_Version type

 

Sounds OK, as long as we don't do sub-decimals,

and or alphabetic characters, like 5.1a.

 

Good catch, Radek!

 

Arpad

================================================

 

From: ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mirmak, Michael
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 2:09 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Issue on IBIS 5.1 AMI_Version type

 

Thanks to Radek Biernacki for spotting this: AMI_Version is defined as Type
String, but we require that it accept values of "5.1" or greater.  "Greater"
is meaningless if this is a string, so this is unenforceable.

 

I would recommend changing this to Float, assuming that we will not be
defining sub-decimal version numbers (5.1.2, for example).

 

Comments?  Objections?  This will be raised at tomorrow's Open Forum
teleconference.

 

-          MM

Other related posts: