Dear fellas; let me toss in this note:
If ya make Fusedoc too complex, folks will stop using it!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BORKMAN Lee [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 6:25 PM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: RE: Fusedocs Q
>
> Actually, now that I'm out of my sleep haze, it's not really symbolic
> logic
> that I'm thinking, but simply some kind of conditional FuseDoc.
>
> Normally in FuseDoc every attribute specificationis used/parsed. I am
> suggesting that we can generalise up one level, and optionally specify the
> conditions under which a set of attribute specifications will be
> used/parsed.
>
> So the simple version is:
>
> ATTRIBUTES
> -->[personID]: the primary key of the person record
>
>
> But a richer version could be like this:
> ATTRIBUTES
> -->[personID]: the primary key of the person record
> (not(exists(personID)) => {
> surname: the surname of the person in question
> zipCode: the person's zip-code
> }
>
> This would mean that you have to supply personID OR supply BOTH surname
> AND
> zip-code.
>
> In general terms:
> ATTRIBUTES
> input_condition => {
> attribute_specification
> }
>
> The big problem here is in defining the syntax for the conditional. I
> would
> opt for basic ColdFusion conditional syntax, but we'd like FuseDoc and
> FuseBox to conquer more than simply the ColdFusion world, so something
> more
> generic would be preferable.
>
> Anyway, it's a merest notion, a bagatelle, if you like. But I think that
> some general kind of solution (how modest he is) like this would be better
> than thinking up a new symbol for every kind of attribute relationship
> that
> comes to mind.
>
> THanks,
> LeeBB.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Fuseboxers, Lee's suggesting making some version of symbolic logic
> available
> but not mandatory to use. Do you think we'd encounter the sitation where
> some people who know symbolic logic will put stuff in their Fusedocs that
> are inscrutable to the rest of us? Or do you think this would be valuable?
>
> And I'm sure even if we disagree on symbolic logic in Fusebox, we can all
> agree with Steve Nelson's point that webslugs like Nat P. should turn off
> Baywatch and do some work, dammit! Sorry. Just had to vent...
>
>
>
> IMPORTANT NOTICE:
> This e-mail and any attachment to it is intended only to be read or used
> by
> the named addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally
> privileged
> information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any
> mistaken transmission to you. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
> immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must
> not
> disclose, copy or use any part of this e-mail if you are not the intended
> recipient. The RTA is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to
> this e-mail or attachment to it.
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
