Re: [tablix-list] Modification to preferred.c?

From: Nicholas Robinson <>
Date: Fri Jun 03 2005 - 19:06:22 CEST

Hi Tomaz

My first thought is to leave consecutive.c alone and change preferred.c. I
wonder if, for an event where repeats>1, preferred.c should:

1. Accept a preferred-period (and no preferred-day) restriction and apply it
to every instance of the event - wanting to schedule a repeat event at the
same time of day seems a sensible thing to want to do.

2. Accept a preferred-day (and no preferred-period), issue a non-fatal error,
but apply it to every instance of the event - seems a less likely intention
to want to schedule every instance on the same day.

3. If both preferred-day and preferred-period are present, issue a non-fatal
error, but only apply them to one instance of the event. The user's intention
(assuming not a mistake) is probably that one instance needs to be at a
specific time, with the other instances less important.

The user is kept informed of what is going on and it works if a 'consecutive'
restriction is present without either module being aware of the other.

If you don't like this, I'll go ahead with your suggestion. I'm not set in
stone on it! An advantage of your suggestion would seem to be that you can
have different weights for 'consecutive-preferred...' and 'preferred...'

Best Wishes


> Hash: SHA1
> Hi
> > Putting a consecutive restriction as follows then makes the intention
> > clear here:
> >
> > <event name="Games" repeats="4">
> > <restriction type="consecutive"/>
> > <restriction type="preferred-day">1</restriction>
> > <restriction type="preferred-period">1</restriction>
> > <resource type="teacher" name="NPR"/>
> > <resource type="class" name="1B"/>
> > </event>
> >
> > This should schedule a block of four lessons starting in lesson 2 on day
> > 2.
> >
> > I can see a way to implement this sensibly - and issue appropriate
> > warnings if restrictions are ignored/partially applied, if you think it
> > is right.
> I agree it would be nice to have that. How are you planning to do
> implement it? I don't like the idea that the module would
> somehow affect how the module is working.
> Maybe it would be better to define "consecutive-preferred-day" and
> "consecutive-preferred-period" in module?
> Best regards
> Tomaz Solc
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
> tLdmZrG9JaWt+jaSir7XuLs=
> =ToJO

Fight Prejudice - Fight the Ban (see
Received on Fri Jun 03 19:06:36 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 16 2005 - 20:43:45 CEST