# non-inclusive intervals in ADL

**Category:** [Implementers (archive)](https://discourse.openehr.org/c/implementers-archive/158)
**Created:** 2008-12-02 07:38 UTC
**Views:** 30
**Replies:** 5
**URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/non-inclusive-intervals-in-adl/13812

---

## Post #1 by @Andrew_Patterson

I was dusting off the old parser and running it over the sample
test files on the openehr subversion site

dev/adl/test

My parser didn't handle the new 1\.4 non\-inclusive
intervals, or the new duration stuff \- fair enough, so I
have updated it to pass the test archetypes\. However, I
have now realise that the location of the > character
in the test archetypes is actually different than the
location in the ADL specs \(in some spots\)\.

4\.5\.2 has the explanation of ranges and does it with
the > after the number\.\. and  5\.4\.2\.2 has an example of

length matches \{|0>\.\.<1000|\}

where the test files have this as

length matches \{|>0\.\.<1000|\}

i\.e\. the > character comes immediately after the | character\.

Also, can we drop the 'infinity'/'\*' open ended range thing
from intervals \- I don't think anyone uses them, they seem to
add nothing to the expressiveness of the ADL, and it just seems
like a waste to even have them in the grammar \(|>=5| seems
to be as clear to me as |5\.\.infinity|\)

Andrew

---

## Post #2 by @thomas.beale

Andrew,

I have created a new PR with you as the reporter \- feel free to clean up
the explanation / add details \- see
http://www.openehr.org/issues/browse/SPEC-286

\- thomas

Andrew Patterson wrote:

---

## Post #3 by @pablo

Hi all,

I think \(IMHO\) the notation 5\.\.\* is very clear, you know what you're
talking about at a glance, I vote to have both notation options to
open intervals in ADL\.

Cheers,
Pablo Pazos Gutierrez

---

## Post #4 by @Andrew_Patterson

> I think \(IMHO\) the notation 5\.\.\* is very clear, you know what you're
> talking about at a glance, I vote to have both notation options to
> open intervals in ADL\.

But is 5\.\.infinity necessary as well? That makes 3 ways of saying
the same thing\.\.

>> =5|
>
> 5\.\.\*|
> 5\.\.infinity|

It's not a big deal, but it just adds needless complexity to parsers
and the spec\.\. I'd vote for the infinity keyword to be dropped and
just have the \*, or >= form\.\.

Andrew

---

## Post #5 by @pablo

>> I think \(IMHO\) the notation 5\.\.\* is very clear, you know what you're
>> talking about at a glance, I vote to have both notation options to
>> open intervals in ADL\.
>
> But is 5\.\.infinity necessary as well? That makes 3 ways of saying
> the same thing\.\.
>
You're right, the use of infinity is not so clear at a glance, it mix
symbols \('5','\.\.'\) with words\.
I think 5\.\.\* is the clearest way of the three below \(I'm used to this
notation\)\.

---

## Post #6 by @yampeku

And don't forget that "infinity" is just an English word\. There are
people out there that simply won't know what it means\.

---


**Canonical:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/non-inclusive-intervals-in-adl/13812
**Original content:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/non-inclusive-intervals-in-adl/13812