Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: can INCLUDE & EXCLUDE be used on Ability files?

Expand Messages
  • Tom Parker
    ... Given ... abilities ... raise a ... probable ... There is a third option: * (INCLUDE:CATEGORY=cat;abilityKey,abilityKey|...) This makes each CATEGORY
    Message 1 of 9 , May 6, 2008
      --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, James Dempsey <jdempsey@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Eddy,
      >
      > On 6/05/2008 10:50 PM Eddy Anthony wrote
      > > Can the pcc INCLUDE and EXCLUDE features be used on Ability files?
      Given
      > > that we need to reference the ability category everywhere else
      abilities
      > > are used what is the syntax for this in INCLUDE/EXCLUDE?
      > >
      > >
      > Currently it isn't considered and you need to do a basic key match. If
      > there are duplicates you would get undefined results :(
      >
      > I think we will need a quick discussion about syntax and then to
      raise a
      > bug to get it implemented. Having key references only will be a
      probable
      > later conversion problem, one of Tom's favourite things - ambiguity :)
      >
      > Current syntax:
      >
      > ABILITY:filename(INCLUDE:x|x)
      >
      > as multiple includes on a single file are not supported we will need to
      > make sure multiple categories can be supported.
      >
      > So the options are either
      >
      > * (INCLUDE:CATEGORY=cat|abilityKey|...)
      > where you have a series of pairs, or a category followed by
      > multiple ability keys within that category, and then the new
      > category precedes another list of keys e.g. CATEGORY=Class
      > Ability|Foo1|Foo2|CATEGORY=Feat|Alertness
      >
      > or
      >
      > * (INCLUDE:CATEGORY=cat;abilityKey|...)
      > where each key now consists of both the category and the key.
      > While more wordy I'd prefer this format. I'm a bit rusty on
      > separators, so semicolon may not be the correct one.
      > e.g. CATEGORY=Class Ability;Foo1|CATEGORY=Class
      > Ability;Foo2|CATEGORY=Feat;Alertness

      There is a third option:


      * (INCLUDE:CATEGORY=cat;abilityKey,abilityKey|...)
      This makes each CATEGORY separable by | while using unique separators
      to break apart the CATEGORY from the keys. This makes parsing rather
      easy...
      for each item separated by |
      for the first item separated by ; set the CATEGORY
      for the second item separated by ;
      for each item separated by , do stuff with that Ability

      e.g. CATEGORY=Class Ability;Foo1,Foo2|CATEGORY=Feat;Alertness

      This gives the "finer control" (and less jumping back and forth
      between token types) of the second option without the verbosity.

      TP.
    • Eddy Anthony
      Trackered and assigned to James so it doesn t get lost, I haven t assigned a group to it. [ 1959968 ] INCLUDE & EXCLUDE usage on Ability files
      Message 2 of 9 , May 7, 2008
        Trackered and assigned to James so it doesn't get lost, I haven't assigned a
        group to it.

        [ 1959968 ] INCLUDE & EXCLUDE usage on Ability files
        https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1959968&group_id=2
        5576&atid=384719

        Tom Parker scribed:

        > --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, James Dempsey <jdempsey@...> wrote:
        >>
        >> Hi Eddy,
        >>
        >> On 6/05/2008 10:50 PM Eddy Anthony wrote
        >>> Can the pcc INCLUDE and EXCLUDE features be used on Ability files?
        > Given
        >>> that we need to reference the ability category everywhere else
        > abilities
        >>> are used what is the syntax for this in INCLUDE/EXCLUDE?
        >>>
        >>>
        >> Currently it isn't considered and you need to do a basic key match. If
        >> there are duplicates you would get undefined results :(
        >>
        >> I think we will need a quick discussion about syntax and then to
        > raise a
        >> bug to get it implemented. Having key references only will be a
        > probable
        >> later conversion problem, one of Tom's favourite things - ambiguity :)
        >>
        >> Current syntax:
        >>
        >> ABILITY:filename(INCLUDE:x|x)
        >>
        >> as multiple includes on a single file are not supported we will need to
        >> make sure multiple categories can be supported.
        >>
        >> So the options are either
        >>
        >> * (INCLUDE:CATEGORY=cat|abilityKey|...)
        >> where you have a series of pairs, or a category followed by
        >> multiple ability keys within that category, and then the new
        >> category precedes another list of keys e.g. CATEGORY=Class
        >> Ability|Foo1|Foo2|CATEGORY=Feat|Alertness
        >>
        >> or
        >>
        >> * (INCLUDE:CATEGORY=cat;abilityKey|...)
        >> where each key now consists of both the category and the key.
        >> While more wordy I'd prefer this format. I'm a bit rusty on
        >> separators, so semicolon may not be the correct one.
        >> e.g. CATEGORY=Class Ability;Foo1|CATEGORY=Class
        >> Ability;Foo2|CATEGORY=Feat;Alertness
        >
        > There is a third option:
        >
        >
        > * (INCLUDE:CATEGORY=cat;abilityKey,abilityKey|...)
        > This makes each CATEGORY separable by | while using unique separators
        > to break apart the CATEGORY from the keys. This makes parsing rather
        > easy...
        > for each item separated by |
        > for the first item separated by ; set the CATEGORY
        > for the second item separated by ;
        > for each item separated by , do stuff with that Ability
        >
        > e.g. CATEGORY=Class Ability;Foo1,Foo2|CATEGORY=Feat;Alertness
        >
        > This gives the "finer control" (and less jumping back and forth
        > between token types) of the second option without the verbosity.
        >
        > TP.

        --
        ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT)
        ~ Chair Second, PCGen Board of Directors
        ~ Data Content Second, Doc Chimp, OS Tamarin
      • James Dempsey
        Hi Eddy, I presume we will go with Tom s suggestion? That seems the best to me. Cheers, James. ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Message 3 of 9 , May 7, 2008
          Hi Eddy,

          I presume we will go with Tom's suggestion? That seems the best to me.

          Cheers,
          James.


          2008/5/8 Eddy Anthony <eddyba@...>:

          > Trackered and assigned to James so it doesn't get lost, I haven't assigned
          > a
          > group to it.
          >
          > [ 1959968 ] INCLUDE & EXCLUDE usage on Ability files
          >
          > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1959968&group_id=2
          > 5576&atid=384719<https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1959968&group_id=25576&atid=384719>
          >
          > Tom Parker scribed:
          >
          > > --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, James Dempsey <jdempsey@...> wrote:
          > >>
          > >> Hi Eddy,
          > >>
          > >> On 6/05/2008 10:50 PM Eddy Anthony wrote
          > >>> Can the pcc INCLUDE and EXCLUDE features be used on Ability files?
          > > Given
          > >>> that we need to reference the ability category everywhere else
          > > abilities
          > >>> are used what is the syntax for this in INCLUDE/EXCLUDE?
          > >>>
          > >>>
          > >> Currently it isn't considered and you need to do a basic key match. If
          > >> there are duplicates you would get undefined results :(
          > >>
          > >> I think we will need a quick discussion about syntax and then to
          > > raise a
          > >> bug to get it implemented. Having key references only will be a
          > > probable
          > >> later conversion problem, one of Tom's favourite things - ambiguity :)
          > >>
          > >> Current syntax:
          > >>
          > >> ABILITY:filename(INCLUDE:x|x)
          > >>
          > >> as multiple includes on a single file are not supported we will need to
          > >> make sure multiple categories can be supported.
          > >>
          > >> So the options are either
          > >>
          > >> * (INCLUDE:CATEGORY=cat|abilityKey|...)
          > >> where you have a series of pairs, or a category followed by
          > >> multiple ability keys within that category, and then the new
          > >> category precedes another list of keys e.g. CATEGORY=Class
          > >> Ability|Foo1|Foo2|CATEGORY=Feat|Alertness
          > >>
          > >> or
          > >>
          > >> * (INCLUDE:CATEGORY=cat;abilityKey|...)
          > >> where each key now consists of both the category and the key.
          > >> While more wordy I'd prefer this format. I'm a bit rusty on
          > >> separators, so semicolon may not be the correct one.
          > >> e.g. CATEGORY=Class Ability;Foo1|CATEGORY=Class
          > >> Ability;Foo2|CATEGORY=Feat;Alertness
          > >
          > > There is a third option:
          > >
          > >
          > > * (INCLUDE:CATEGORY=cat;abilityKey,abilityKey|...)
          > > This makes each CATEGORY separable by | while using unique separators
          > > to break apart the CATEGORY from the keys. This makes parsing rather
          > > easy...
          > > for each item separated by |
          > > for the first item separated by ; set the CATEGORY
          > > for the second item separated by ;
          > > for each item separated by , do stuff with that Ability
          > >
          > > e.g. CATEGORY=Class Ability;Foo1,Foo2|CATEGORY=Feat;Alertness
          > >
          > > This gives the "finer control" (and less jumping back and forth
          > > between token types) of the second option without the verbosity.
          > >
          > > TP.
          >
          > --
          > ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT)
          > ~ Chair Second, PCGen Board of Directors
          > ~ Data Content Second, Doc Chimp, OS Tamarin
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Eddy Anthony
          If it looks good to you that s enough for me. -Eddy ... -- ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT) ~ Chair Second, PCGen Board of Directors ~ Data Content Second, Doc Chimp, OS
          Message 4 of 9 , May 7, 2008
            If it looks good to you that's enough for me.
            -Eddy

            James Dempsey scribed:

            > Hi Eddy,
            >
            > I presume we will go with Tom's suggestion? That seems the best to me.
            >
            > Cheers,
            > James.
            >
            >
            > 2008/5/8 Eddy Anthony <eddyba@...>:
            >
            >> Trackered and assigned to James so it doesn't get lost, I haven't assigned
            >> a
            >> group to it.
            >>
            >> [ 1959968 ] INCLUDE & EXCLUDE usage on Ability files
            >>
            >> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1959968&group_id=2
            >> 5576&atid=384719<https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=19
            >> 59968&group_id=25576&atid=384719>
            >>
            >> Tom Parker scribed:
            >>
            >>> --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, James Dempsey <jdempsey@...> wrote:
            >>>>
            >>>> Hi Eddy,
            >>>>
            >>>> On 6/05/2008 10:50 PM Eddy Anthony wrote
            >>>>> Can the pcc INCLUDE and EXCLUDE features be used on Ability files?
            >>> Given
            >>>>> that we need to reference the ability category everywhere else
            >>> abilities
            >>>>> are used what is the syntax for this in INCLUDE/EXCLUDE?
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>>> Currently it isn't considered and you need to do a basic key match. If
            >>>> there are duplicates you would get undefined results :(
            >>>>
            >>>> I think we will need a quick discussion about syntax and then to
            >>> raise a
            >>>> bug to get it implemented. Having key references only will be a
            >>> probable
            >>>> later conversion problem, one of Tom's favourite things - ambiguity :)
            >>>>
            >>>> Current syntax:
            >>>>
            >>>> ABILITY:filename(INCLUDE:x|x)
            >>>>
            >>>> as multiple includes on a single file are not supported we will need to
            >>>> make sure multiple categories can be supported.
            >>>>
            >>>> So the options are either
            >>>>
            >>>> * (INCLUDE:CATEGORY=cat|abilityKey|...)
            >>>> where you have a series of pairs, or a category followed by
            >>>> multiple ability keys within that category, and then the new
            >>>> category precedes another list of keys e.g. CATEGORY=Class
            >>>> Ability|Foo1|Foo2|CATEGORY=Feat|Alertness
            >>>>
            >>>> or
            >>>>
            >>>> * (INCLUDE:CATEGORY=cat;abilityKey|...)
            >>>> where each key now consists of both the category and the key.
            >>>> While more wordy I'd prefer this format. I'm a bit rusty on
            >>>> separators, so semicolon may not be the correct one.
            >>>> e.g. CATEGORY=Class Ability;Foo1|CATEGORY=Class
            >>>> Ability;Foo2|CATEGORY=Feat;Alertness
            >>>
            >>> There is a third option:
            >>>
            >>>
            >>> * (INCLUDE:CATEGORY=cat;abilityKey,abilityKey|...)
            >>> This makes each CATEGORY separable by | while using unique separators
            >>> to break apart the CATEGORY from the keys. This makes parsing rather
            >>> easy...
            >>> for each item separated by |
            >>> for the first item separated by ; set the CATEGORY
            >>> for the second item separated by ;
            >>> for each item separated by , do stuff with that Ability
            >>>
            >>> e.g. CATEGORY=Class Ability;Foo1,Foo2|CATEGORY=Feat;Alertness
            >>>
            >>> This gives the "finer control" (and less jumping back and forth
            >>> between token types) of the second option without the verbosity.
            >>>
            >>> TP.

            --
            ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT)
            ~ Chair Second, PCGen Board of Directors
            ~ Data Content Second, Doc Chimp, OS Tamarin
          • James Dempsey
            Hi, I ve implemented Tom s option in both 5.14 and trunk. e.g. INCLUDE:CATEGORY=Occupation,Academic,Celebrity,Adventurer|CATEGORY=Wealth,Wealth Roll of 2 Note:
            Message 5 of 9 , May 17, 2008
              Hi,

              I've implemented Tom's option in both 5.14 and trunk. e.g.
              INCLUDE:CATEGORY=Occupation,Academic,Celebrity,Adventurer|CATEGORY=Wealth,Wealth
              Roll of 2

              Note: This introduces a new deprecation warning. INCLUDE:key is no longer
              valid on feat or ability includes in PCC files. A deprecation warning has
              been added in both 5.14 and trunk for this. The trunk one will be removed
              once the core data has been updated.

              Cheers,
              James.

              2008/5/8 Eddy Anthony <eddyba@...>:

              > If it looks good to you that's enough for me.
              > -Eddy
              >
              > James Dempsey scribed:
              >
              > > Hi Eddy,
              > >
              > > I presume we will go with Tom's suggestion? That seems the best to me.
              > >
              > > Cheers,
              > > James.
              > >
              > >
              > > 2008/5/8 Eddy Anthony <eddyba@...>:
              > >
              > >> Trackered and assigned to James so it doesn't get lost, I haven't
              > assigned
              > >> a
              > >> group to it.
              > >>
              > >> [ 1959968 ] INCLUDE & EXCLUDE usage on Ability files
              > >>
              > >>
              > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1959968&group_id=2
              > >> 5576&atid=384719<
              > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=19
              > >> 59968&group_id=25576&atid=384719>
              > >>
              > >> Tom Parker scribed:
              > >>
              > >>> --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, James Dempsey <jdempsey@...> wrote:
              > >>>>
              > >>>> Hi Eddy,
              > >>>>
              > >>>> On 6/05/2008 10:50 PM Eddy Anthony wrote
              > >>>>> Can the pcc INCLUDE and EXCLUDE features be used on Ability files?
              > >>> Given
              > >>>>> that we need to reference the ability category everywhere else
              > >>> abilities
              > >>>>> are used what is the syntax for this in INCLUDE/EXCLUDE?
              > >>>>>
              > >>>>>
              > >>>> Currently it isn't considered and you need to do a basic key match. If
              > >>>> there are duplicates you would get undefined results :(
              > >>>>
              > >>>> I think we will need a quick discussion about syntax and then to
              > >>> raise a
              > >>>> bug to get it implemented. Having key references only will be a
              > >>> probable
              > >>>> later conversion problem, one of Tom's favourite things - ambiguity :)
              > >>>>
              > >>>> Current syntax:
              > >>>>
              > >>>> ABILITY:filename(INCLUDE:x|x)
              > >>>>
              > >>>> as multiple includes on a single file are not supported we will need
              > to
              > >>>> make sure multiple categories can be supported.
              > >>>>
              > >>>> So the options are either
              > >>>>
              > >>>> * (INCLUDE:CATEGORY=cat|abilityKey|...)
              > >>>> where you have a series of pairs, or a category followed by
              > >>>> multiple ability keys within that category, and then the new
              > >>>> category precedes another list of keys e.g. CATEGORY=Class
              > >>>> Ability|Foo1|Foo2|CATEGORY=Feat|Alertness
              > >>>>
              > >>>> or
              > >>>>
              > >>>> * (INCLUDE:CATEGORY=cat;abilityKey|...)
              > >>>> where each key now consists of both the category and the key.
              > >>>> While more wordy I'd prefer this format. I'm a bit rusty on
              > >>>> separators, so semicolon may not be the correct one.
              > >>>> e.g. CATEGORY=Class Ability;Foo1|CATEGORY=Class
              > >>>> Ability;Foo2|CATEGORY=Feat;Alertness
              > >>>
              > >>> There is a third option:
              > >>>
              > >>>
              > >>> * (INCLUDE:CATEGORY=cat;abilityKey,abilityKey|...)
              > >>> This makes each CATEGORY separable by | while using unique separators
              > >>> to break apart the CATEGORY from the keys. This makes parsing rather
              > >>> easy...
              > >>> for each item separated by |
              > >>> for the first item separated by ; set the CATEGORY
              > >>> for the second item separated by ;
              > >>> for each item separated by , do stuff with that Ability
              > >>>
              > >>> e.g. CATEGORY=Class Ability;Foo1,Foo2|CATEGORY=Feat;Alertness
              > >>>
              > >>> This gives the "finer control" (and less jumping back and forth
              > >>> between token types) of the second option without the verbosity.
              > >>>
              > >>> TP.
              >
              > --
              > ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT)
              > ~ Chair Second, PCGen Board of Directors
              > ~ Data Content Second, Doc Chimp, OS Tamarin
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Andrew Wilson
              ... That isn t Tom s proposed syntax. It s missing the semi-colons. INCLUDE:CATEGORY=Occupation;Academic,Celebrity,Adventurer|CATEGORY=Wealth;Wealth Roll of
              Message 6 of 9 , May 18, 2008
                On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:56:45AM +1000, James Dempsey wrote:
                > I've implemented Tom's option in both 5.14 and trunk. e.g.
                > INCLUDE:CATEGORY=Occupation,Academic,Celebrity,Adventurer|CATEGORY=Wealth,Wealth
                > Roll of 2

                That isn't Tom's proposed syntax. It's missing the semi-colons.

                INCLUDE:CATEGORY=Occupation;Academic,Celebrity,Adventurer|CATEGORY=Wealth;Wealth
                Roll of 2

                andrew
                --
                Aries: (March 21 - April 19)
                You'll be simultaneously struck by mystical lightning, bathed
                with otherworldly cosmic rays, and injected with the Apollo
                Serum, so you'll be a pretty powerful superhero if you ever
                get out of the coma.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.