Difference between revisions of "Talk:UKCVAR"
m |
|||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
[[User:Jens|jens]] 05:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC) | [[User:Jens|jens]] 05:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| − | Your proposal makes sense. But S100 v 0.0.4 which is the current draft now state on page 17 1-4.3 "In S-100 operations are not used". However, further down operations seems to be possible, or my English goes the German way ;) | + | Your proposal makes sense. But S100 v 0.0.4 which is the current draft now state on page 17 1-4.3 "In S-100 operations are not used". However, further down operations seems to be possible, or my English goes the German way ;) ... and more down it is prohibited again page 74 3-5.2.9 |
Revision as of 07:12, 8 October 2009
jens 12:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
That might fix the problem of UKC stated sometimes. The problem remains is if authorities declare. "... an UKC of 10% of the ship's draught but at least 2.5 metres". That sounds serious to code.
However, ideas please!
raphael 15:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC): In that case ("at least") use both UKCFIX and UKCVAR? That leaves, theoretically, "... an UKC of 10% of the ship's draught or 2.5 metres whichever is less".
If we want a complete solution one way is to make it a complex attribute like this:
Attribute: UKC...
Sub-attributes:
UKCFIX
UKCVAR
OPERAT: 1 (whichever is more) or 2 (whichever is less)
where OPERAT is an operation applied to the other sub-attributes.
Just an idea. (And now that I have put it down, it (OPERAT) could be extended to define expressions to other combinations of attributes in other circumstances...)
jens 05:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Your proposal makes sense. But S100 v 0.0.4 which is the current draft now state on page 17 1-4.3 "In S-100 operations are not used". However, further down operations seems to be possible, or my English goes the German way ;) ... and more down it is prohibited again page 74 3-5.2.9