On 27/01/2016, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > On 2016-01-27 22:54, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: >> Concerning foo_1 vs foo[1] vs foo:1, I this the last one can be safely >> thrown to the idea bin (despite being used by seamarks) because ':' >> clashes with namespacing, which is firmly established. foo[1] looks >> better than foo_1 to my programer eyes, but is has no technical >> advantage (?) and I suspect that most people will find foo_1 more >> pleasing, it's also one less character to type, less annoying to parse >> with a regexp, and much more established in taginfo. > > Would you feel any different about your foo:1 example if it were written > foo%1, avoiding any clash with namespacing?
I don't really care wether it's _1, %1 or [1], except that the first one is already popular. But > By the way, I am trying to maintain the distinction between the "suffix > notation" where the index value is actually the final part of the key > segment, and the "hierarchical/seamark" notation where the index value > is a separate segment of the full key string. As far as I'm aware, the "suffix notation" has always meant "suffix within a namespace", not "suffix at the very end of the key". We already have a significant number of "*name_1:*" keys in the db, for example. > Maybe we should look at some technical use cases, like "in a navigation > map creator, find all the categories for a POI" or "find the per-lane > destination (and destination:ref and turn-lane stuff) information so I > can construct a simulated road sign". Some will be done with a > programming language, others may naturally tend towards SQL. > >> Concerning using '.' as a separator instead of ':', I don; t see what >> it brings us, beside familiarity to users of some programing languages >> (but change language and sudenly ':' becomes more familiar). > > Sometimes using a familiar character (such as the ":" here) with new > semantics can lead to confusion. There comes a point when it is better > to make a clean break so there is no confusion. Whether it is a colon or > a dot or some other character is "detail" really. Yes, but in the "lane[1].destination=Paris" example, you use '.' for something (namespacing) that we've always happily used ':' before. I don't see a need for the change, my best guess was "it looks more familiar to users of some programming languages" but IMHO it's not worth the confusion it'll bring to most people. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
