[ibis-editorial] Re: Issue on IBIS 5.1 AMI_Version type
- From: "Mirmak, Michael" <michael.mirmak@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 00:29:39 +0000
We can definitely add text regarding enumeration for AMI_Version, to ensure
clarity if String is kept as the type.
However, should we consider a minor clarification BIRD for the original [IBIS
Ver], to actually enumerate the legal entries? If you read the keyword
definition, there's no statement about what is and is not legal there. It's
not a critical issue, but would certainly help future releases.
- MM
From: ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 5:24 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Re: Issue on IBIS 5.1 AMI_Version type
Actually Bob is making a good point...
Arpad
======================================
From:
ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]>
On Behalf Of Walter Katz
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 5:47 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Re: Issue on IBIS 5.1 AMI_Version type
All,
I agree with Bob.
Walter
From:
ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]>
On Behalf Of Bob Ross
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 6:25 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [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>
[mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]>
On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:19 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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>
[mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]>
On Behalf Of Mirmak, Michael
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 2:09 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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:
