On May 1, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Leif Andersson wrote:
+1
count can possibly be complemented or replaced with occurrence as
suggested.
It'd be nice to be able to denote last occurrence [-1].
And I suppose the indexing should be based on ordinary perl
subscript indexing - i.e. governed by the
On May 3, 2006, at 6:28 AM, Edward Summers wrote:
$field-delete_subfield(pos = 2);
won't work because 'pos' is a perl keyword--
I should've tried it before I said this -- it works fine in that
context, even though my perl syntax highlighter indicates otherwise.
So I've changed the
Edward Summers wrote:
The current documentation for the new method reads like this:
--
delete_subfield() allows you to remove subfields from a field:
# delete any subfield a in the field
$field-delete_subfield(code = 'a');
# delete any subfield a or u
Brad Baxter wrote:
On 5/3/06, Michael Kreyche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The term position (pos) seems a little ambiguous to me on the face
of it. Does (code = 'u', pos = 0) mean the first subfield u (which
is what I take it to mean) or subfield u if it's the first subfield
(which it might
On May 3, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Mark Jordan wrote:
I think it should mean the zeroth occurrence of subfield 'u',
since specifying which of a repeated group of subfields is a
realistic task, as you say. For example, each record has two 'u's
but all of the first ones are garbage.
Actually
Edward Summers wrote:
On May 3, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Mark Jordan wrote:
I think it should mean the zeroth occurrence of subfield 'u', since
specifying which of a repeated group of subfields is a realistic task,
as you say. For example, each record has two 'u's but all of the first
ones are
Ed, the only problem I can see with position in the field is if a
preceding subfield does not exist in every record. For example, in a
given batch, most but not all records have an 856 subfield 3, followed
by multiple subfield u's. If you ask to delete the first u using pos,
then your target
On May 3, 2006, at 11:25 AM, Mark Jordan wrote:
For example, in a given batch, most but not all records have an 856
subfield 3, followed by multiple subfield u's. If you ask to delete
the first u using pos, then your target will be different
determined by the presence of subfield 3. If
On 5/1/06, Edward Summers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 1, 2006, at 1:24 PM, Brad Baxter wrote:
# delete first two subfield u
$field-delete_subfield(code = 'u', count = 2);
I don't think I like it this way. How would you delete just the
second one?
I'd rather see 'count' mean
++
sorry, couldn't resist
+1
I like Leif's proposal. It also might be useful to allow code to
accept multiple values.
-Tim
Timothy Prettyman
LIT/LIbrary Systems
University of Michigan
On May 1, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Leif Andersson wrote:
+1
count can possibly be complemented or replaced with occurrence as
Edward Summers wrote:
On Apr 29, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Mark Jordan wrote:
Maybe other people should verify the usefulness of a delete subfield
function before anyone does anything about it, though. Would a half
dozen +1 votes from perl4libers validate its usefulness?
Yes it would...but to get
OK -- here's the call for a vote. All interested perl4lib members are
encouraged to participate by emailing the list.
+1
Bryan Baldus
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.inwave.com/eija
+1
:-)
//Ed
+1
//Gary
--
===
Gary Bertchume
Library Systems Analyst
Columbia University Libraries
212 854-8582
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===
On 5/1/06, Bryan Baldus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday, May 01, 2006 1:24 PM, Brad Baxter wrote:
On 4/30/06, Edward Summers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
# delete first two subfield u
$field-delete_subfield(code = 'u', count = 2);
I don't think I like it this way. How would you delete
On May 1, 2006, at 1:24 PM, Brad Baxter wrote:
# delete first two subfield u
$field-delete_subfield(code = 'u', count = 2);
I don't think I like it this way. How would you delete just the
second one?
I'd rather see 'count' mean 'occurrence', so the above would mean
delete the second
On Apr 29, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Mark Jordan wrote:
Maybe other people should verify the usefulness of a delete
subfield function before anyone does anything about it, though.
Would a half dozen +1 votes from perl4libers validate its usefulness?
Yes it would...but to get the changes out on
Edward Summers wrote:
Deleting subfields is a bit tricky since subfields may
repeat, and sometimes people just want to delete one of them. An
unfortunate state of affairs perhaps.
Yeah, I can see what you're saying, but doesn't that also apply to
repeatable fields? If a particular subfield
On Apr 29, 2006, at 1:08 AM, Mark Jordan wrote:
Edward Summers wrote:
Deleting subfields is a bit tricky since subfields may repeat, and
sometimes people just want to delete one of them. An unfortunate
state of affairs perhaps.
Yeah, I can see what you're saying, but doesn't that also
Edward Summers wrote:
That could work if subfields were objects, but they're just strings. It
could simply delete all of them unless a second parameter is passed in,
which would basically act like a filter:
$field-delete_subfield('a', qr/badsubject/);
That sounds pretty good, though I'm
Edward Summers wrote:
On Apr 29, 2006, at 1:08 AM, Mark Jordan wrote:
Edward Summers wrote:
Deleting subfields is a bit tricky since subfields may repeat, and
sometimes people just want to delete one of them. An unfortunate
state of affairs perhaps.
Yeah, I can see what you're saying, but
Hi everybody,
Any advice on how I'd go about using MARC::Record to delete just a
specific subfield? The old MARC.pm had deletemarc(), which would delete
entire records, specific fields, as well as specific subfields depending
on what parameters are passed to it.
Or should I just reconstruct
On Apr 28, 2006, at 8:20 PM, Michael Kreyche wrote:
my $new856f = MARC::Field-new('856',$i1,$i2,@new856s);
$field-replace_with($new856f);
If there's an easier way, I'd like to know!
Creating a new field and replacing the old one with the new one is
the way to go. Deleting subfields is a
24 matches
Mail list logo
