On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 05:29:09PM +0100, Leif Andersson wrote: > What I am trying to do is to identify areas in the API where improvments can > be done.
Much appreciated. The return values should be consistent 0/undef, athough logically they amount to the same thing in Perl. Could you add a ticket in RT [1] for that? Stringing the field()->subfield() methods along is a nice short cut, but it could lead to some strange things happening to your MARC data, especially when the call to field() results in more than one field being found. I feel that we leave this behavior the way it is, since it encourages you to check return values (always a good thing). If you want different behavior you are free to subclass MARC::Record, MARC::Field, and even release it to CPAN as a variant...but I recommend keeping this core behavior in MARC::Record as it is. Thanks for taking the time to look into this though, and for your comments. We're always on the lookout for good new developers so if you are interested in helping out get an account on SourceForge and we'll set you up. //Ed [1] http://rt.cpan.org/NoAuth/Bugs.html?Dist=MARC-Record
