On October 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Before doing any more work BBDB related work, I'd like to see this
> issue settled. Personally, I'm in favour of the first solution,
> obviously. However, in order to do away with the uncertainty, I'd be
> happy with any decision at all. So, dear maintainer... :) What is
> it going to be? Deliver me from indecision... I know we talked about
> this before, Waider, but I don't think anything was actually decided.
> I remember faintly that I mailed you and said that we should take the
> discussion to the newsgroup. But I never did. :)
>
> Alex.
I have to apologise again for being virtually incommunicado at the
moment; I'm waiting for a phoneline to be installed (for about five
weeks now...) and my net access is via a cellphone in the meantime, so
I don't get much online time.
Anyway.
It seems like there's more Yay than Nay for zips-as-strings; the only
major dissent, if I recall correctly, was by someone who was offering
to have some sort of pluggable validation written by the weekend or so
after they posted. Which, obviously, hasn't happened. What I'd suggest
is this: go ahead with the zips-as-strings conversion (does this mean
we need BBDB v6 file format? I guess so...), and modify the validation
code to work on the strings - i.e. it doesn't try to parse the
zipcodes into a list or whatever, but it does try to make sure that
the string conforms to something good - and then make the entire
validation option switchable. bbdb-validate-zip-codes-p, for
example.
There. Your Maintainer Has Spoken :)
Waider.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / Yes, it /is/ very personal of me.
Ronan Waide, Technology Non-Consultant, please update your addressbook
_______________________________________________
bbdb-info mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/bbdb-info
