From: Lars Kr.Lundin <gramps@lk...> - 2002-05-20 12:28:50
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 05:36:05PM -0600, Don Allingham wrote:
> I need to dwell on this a bit, but I think the ideas here are pretty
> Another alternative might be to return two strings or lists that
> indicate the genders back to the common ancestor.
> A cousin relationship (Mary, daughter of Max, son of Jane, and Alex, son
> of Wilbur, son of Jane) would look like:
> [ 'f', 'm', 'f' ]
> [ 'm', 'm', 'f' ]
Thanks for the feed-back on my thoughts on generalizing the Relationship
As far as I can see your alternative representation is equivalent to
the one I suggested. Your two sequences can easily be transformed into
the single one I proposed - and vice versa.
This is true as long as the Relationship Calculator deals with
relationships defined by (at least) one common ancestor.
But perhaps in the future some one would like the RC to deal with
relationships defined by (at least) one common descendent or through
marriage or something. I think the one-string representation may be
better suited for enhancements of that nature.
In any case, I think the important concept is that of allowing for
plugins that can utilize language-specific terms for special kinds
Linux user & Danish Amateur Genealogist
GEDCOMP: An extensive and free database for genealogists with
interest in Denmark: http://www.lklundin.dk/gedcomp/
m=E5n 2002-05-20 klockan 14.29 skrev Lars Kr.Lundin:
> As far as I can see your alternative representation is equivalent to
> the one I suggested. Your two sequences can easily be transformed into
> the single one I proposed - and vice versa.
Something like this would be extremely helpful and is, as far as I can
remember, pretty close to what I suggested some months ago.