Review of Jesse Phillips's CSV Parser

[Manu]

On 11 November 2011 19:07, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:

> On Friday, November 11, 2011 15:25:29 Jesse Phillips wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 02:17:40 -0800, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > > Actually, I'd argue that Row would be better than Record, since it _is_
> > > a row in a table. Personally, I'd find it to be more immediately clear
> > > that way. With Record, I have to figure out what the heck it is a
> record
> > > of, whereas Row is immediately obvious in this context.
> > >
> > > - Jonathan M Davis
> >
> > It _is_ a record of data, just as much as it is a row in a table. The RFC
> > I reference continuously refers to records and never even says "row."
>
> Well, then you have a good argument for keeping it as Record. But
> spreadsheets
> are tables of rows and columns, and a CSV file is a spreadsheet.
> Personally, I
> find the term record overly vague and wouldn't use it for much of anything
> -
> not to mention that it makes me think of the analog music device rather
> than
> anything else. So, I don't particularly like the name Record. I wouldn't
> use
> it in reference to a DB either. I'd use the term row there as well. But
> others
> may not agree with me, and if the RFC uses the term record, then that's a
> definite argument for using Record instead of Row.


+1 for row... although I appreciate the RFC says record all over the place.
That said though, upon reading it, I think that might be the worst RFC ever
written ;)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20111111/cb212731/attachment.html>