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 th
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
