RE: Gauge32 as an INDEX (was: Index values of zero)

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Fine with me, but I thought that some of you had stated that
by adding that SHOULD descibe it in DESCRIPTION clause was
adding another CLR. That was not my intention, there for I
suggested: "It is good practice to.... " which still gets the
message across and does not sound like another CLR.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: woensdag 22 januari 2003 6:10
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Gauge32 as an INDEX (was: Index values of zero)
> 
> 
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > Can we also add here that it would be good practice to document
> > in the [DESCRIPTION] clause why a zero value is used and what it
> > means in cases wehre it is actually a valid index.
> 
> OK, how about this:
> 
>    - For integer-valued objects that appear in an INDEX clause or for
>      integer-valued TCs that are to be used in an index column:
> 
>      - Unsigned32 with a range that excludes zero is RECOMMENDED for
>        most index objects.  It is acceptable to include zero in the
>        range when it is semantically significant or when it is used as
>        the index value for a unique row with special 
> properties.   Such
>        usage SHOULD be clearly documented in the DESCRIPTION clause.
> 
>      - Integer32 or INTEGER with a non-negative range is acceptable.
>        Again, zero SHOULD be excluded from the range except when it is
>        semantically significant or when it is used as the index value
>        for a unique row with special properties, and in such cases the
>        usage SHOULD be clearly documented in the DESCRIPTION clause.
> 
>      - Use of Gauge32 is appropriate for index objects that have gauge
>        semantics.
> 
> //cmh
> 
>