It was pretty easy to get something simple working. Unfortunately, I
can't put it on my web site because Biblio::Thesaurus wants version 5.6
and the server's version is too old. However, you can download it here:
http://www.miskatonic.org/files/thesaurus-demo.tar.gz
If Biblio::Thesaurus
It seems you are right.
That's a pity.
Not so much because of the error checking.
But I was also hoping there was something to be done to situations like this:
Assume we have a record with two 035 fields
035 -- $91234567
035 -- $a(XX)12345678
Now, this code will get the 035 $9 subfield:
$subfie
On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 01:14 PM, Leif Andersson wrote:
With the same BAD record we try $subfield = eval {
$record->field($tag)->subfield($sub) }
This is the only case where we have to put the code in eval.
Should MARC:: take care of the eval for us? I am beginning to think so.
No, it
I think the return values from various methods in the MARC::Record distribution could
be more "intuitive".
And also more consistent.
If we have a BAD record in $record and try to perform $record->field($tag) we get 0 in
return.
But if you try $record->subfield($sub) we get undef.
I would rathe
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 10:32:51AM +0100, Ron Davies wrote:
> I think the documentation would be clearer if it said that after the
> discussion most people wanted the ability to add a new field to the end of
> the hundred group where it belonged. The reason is that according to the
> MARC format
Ron et. al.-
On the issue of alpha and numeric tags, I know that alpha values in tags
have been permitted in the MARC standard for a long time, and applaud the
fact that MARC::Record allows for it, but has anyone actually seen one
used? In some later revision of UNIMARC or one of the national s
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 10:32:51AM +0100, Ron Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The reason is that according to the
> MARC format, fields within a record are supposed to be grouped by block
> (hundred groups). That means that fields may not necessarily be in tag order.
>
> It's true a 001 w
At 19:29 5/11/2003, Leif Andersson wrote:
The documentation says that after a discussion (which I have not been able
to find any trace of) on this list it seemed most people wanted to add a
new field to the end of the hundred group it belongs to!
This sounds very peculiar to me.
If I want to add
