The motivation that Peter mentioned was to use a versification (Synodal) that
contained deuterocanonical material for a module that excluded such content.
I have no big opinion as to whether to have it in the conf or to compute it.
Other than performance. I think having the cached value in the conf makes a lot
of sense and for JSword, we'll probably will store the computed value in the
conf. For phones and other low powered devices, I think it is important for it
to be pre-computed.
I think that there are some specific frontend needs for such a feature (whether
computed or declared):
1) The book list can be pruned to something that is appropriate for the module.
2) The chapter list for a book can likewise be pruned. I.e. the max chapter
number for a book.
3) The verse list for a chapter can also be pruned. I.e. the max verse number
for a chapter.
4) Incrementing/decrementing a verse, chapter or book stays in the bounds of
the scope.
I think it would be helpful for these to be directly supported in the engine.
Having the formal notion of scope can allow for a front-end feature that hides
deutero-canonical material.
Regarding the maintenance, it can be like InstallSize, maintained by an
automated process.
In Him,
DM
On Feb 10, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> Hey guys. I'm remember this thread from a while back am to lazy to go back
> and look.
>
> Please remind me why we want a .conf entry and not a call like:
>
> SWMgr library;
> SWModule *kjv = kjv = library.getModule("KJV");
> VerseKey testKey = "jn.3.16";
>
> // --------------------------------
> ListKey range = kjv.getModuleScope();
> // --------------------------------
>
> range = testKey;
>
> if (range.Error()) cerr << testKey << " is not within the range: " <<
> range.getRangeText() << endl;
>
>
> The only thing missing is the SWModule::getModuleScope() method which could
> easily be written to scan the module and produce an appropriate ListKey.
>
>
> The .conf file is an opportunity for inconsistency. It can be a useful
> checksum or a pain in the butt maintenance nightmare and I'm thinking the
> latter.
>
>
> On 02/10/2012 04:35 PM, David Haslam wrote:
>> Let's not forget that some modules are for a work in progress by the
>> translators.
>>
>> e.g. A New Testament only module may have plenty of cross-references to OT
>> passages, in anticipation that the translation would one day eventually be
>> completed.
>>
>> And - yes - as DM noted, xrefs for modules that are scope-restricted should
>> be linkable for parallel modules that contain the missing books, etc.
>>
>> David
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://sword-dev.350566.n4.nabble.com/Av11n-and-coverage-tp4265350p4376618.html
>> Sent from the SWORD Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
>> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
