[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Tag-ID caveat
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
At 04:44 PM 4/8/97 -0700, Tony Bartoletti wrote:
>After I wrote,
>> (tag (tag-id xxx) (spend (account) (amount)))
>> (tag (spend (spendtag-id xxx) (account) (amount)))
>I realized that you had made this suggestion several days earlier in the mail
>"Re: Tag-Lists" (4/5/97).
>Is it really a matter of standards? If someone wants to give their tags
>tag-ids, whether as a first-level parameter (before "spend") or a second-
>level parameter (within "spend"), in either case they want the intersection
>of their tags with someone elses to be empty, and this would occur in any
>event, especially in the case of matching a "with tag-id" and a "no tag-id"
>tag. I think.
I'm not sure I follow your paragraph but I think you're saying what I was --
that for a tag to mean something, it must specify the thing about which it
speaks -- and that should be unique, or you're in trouble. If you're
desperate for something unique, you can create your own -- and my preferred
method is to use a long enough random number (so that you don't have to
appeal to some granter of unique numbers).
My examples have all shown that for the tag to mean anything, it will refer
to something unique. E.g., my bank would never issue me a permission to
draw from my checking account without specifying my account number or the
bank's own ID as parameters. Once they've done that, the tag is unique.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----