Re: Deleting a subfield using MARC::Record

2006-05-03 Thread Edward Summers
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 you

Re: Question about MARC::RECORD usage

2006-05-03 Thread Ed @ Go Britain
Bryan, Many thanks for the quick response. There are times when the proper order would be $a, $n, $p, $b, $c, as well, aren't there? Thanks for the forwarning - I haven't been told that yet - I'm not involved in the production of the data just in extracting it for publishing! This is proving

Re: Deleting a subfield using MARC::Record

2006-05-03 Thread Mark Jordan
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 wi

Re: Deleting a subfield using MARC::Record

2006-05-03 Thread Michael Kreyche
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 gar

Re: Deleting a subfield using MARC::Record

2006-05-03 Thread Edward Summers
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 'po

RE: Question about MARC::RECORD usage

2006-05-03 Thread Bryan Baldus
On Wednesday, May 03, 2006 9:28 AM, Ed @ Go Britain wrote: >In the 245 record it is >possible to have numerous $n and $p fields which need to be >output with formating between the fields. > >My knowledge of PERL isn't too good and I'm struggling to know >how to extract these repeated subfields a

Question about MARC::RECORD usage

2006-05-03 Thread Ed @ Go Britain
I've been using MARC::Record for a while to extract data using Perl to prepare it for a publishing package (Ventura). This has all worked well for about a year until it was spotted that a repeated subfield has been omitted. In the 245 record it is possible to have numerous $n and $p fields which

Re: Deleting a subfield using MARC::Record

2006-05-03 Thread Mark Jordan
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

Re: Deleting a subfield using MARC::Record

2006-05-03 Thread Brad Baxter
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 sound like ou

Re: Deleting a subfield using MARC::Record

2006-05-03 Thread Michael Kreyche
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

Re: Deleting a subfield using MARC::Record

2006-05-03 Thread Edward Summers
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 th

Re: Deleting a subfield using MARC::Record

2006-05-03 Thread Edward Summers
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