Andy Watts wrote:
I actually made the change myself because the current database uses '&' and the future one 'and',
Yes, sorry about that; let me try and explain.
I guess I still have some questions which are: 1. Was the change deliberate, and if so why?
Yes; the current names are incorrect, the future names are correct (according to the Statutory Instruments that define the names). There should never have been ampersands in the constituency names.
2. Will future remain (deprecated) after the 2010 election?
In getConstituency? I don't think so; it normally only returns the current constituency. getConstituencies has a date argument, which I'll presumably get working for the no longer current constituencies after the election.
3. When future becomes current (so to speak) will the 'and' remain (ie not change to &)?
Yes, this is certain. I will in fact probably take the opportunity to rename the old constituencies correctly (e.g. change "&" to "and", fix the stupid "York, City of"), though of course lookups with the previous names should continue to work.
ATB, Matthew _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
