Difference between revisions of "Talk:UKCVAR"
(New page: ~~~~ 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 seri...) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
However, ideas please! | However, ideas please! | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Rmm|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 <em>or</em> 2.5 metres <em>whichever is less</em>". | ||
| + | |||
| + | If we want a complete solution one way is to make it a complex attribute like this: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Attribute: UKC... | ||
| + | <br>Sub-attributes: | ||
| + | <br>UKCFIX | ||
| + | <br>UKCVAR | ||
| + | <br>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...) | ||
Revision as of 15:19, 7 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...)