Re: [ddlm-group] Space as a list item separator

I am very sorry to hear that.  In my shop, dealing with this one change will involve 1-3 person-months of recoding to make commas optional and
to introduce warning messages when they are encountered and in redoing dictionaries and test cases.  What a pointless waste.  I hope this
group will complete its work in the near future, so we can have some
chance of having something stable to work against.

=====================================================
 Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science
  Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121
       Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769

                +1-631-244-3035
                yaya@dowling.edu
=====================================================

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, James Hester wrote:

Counting up the votes so far on the list delimiter question I get:

Space and comma: David, Herbert
Space only: Simon, Nick, James, Joe (?)
Agnostic: Brian
Unknown: John

It looks like the spaces have it, although I have perhaps over-interpreted
Joe's reply.  

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:57 AM, David Brown <idbrown@mcmaster.ca> wrote:
     MY VOTE IS FOR 1 (SPACE AND COMMA) because commas are better
     visually.  Not a strong argument and I would not give my vote a
     large weighting.  I can live with 2 as well.

     David

     James Hester wrote:
Dear CIF2 people: the time has come to vote on the list item
separator issue.  Firstly: as far as I know, nobody is against
space as a separator, so spaces will be possible list item
separators.  Some may be against commas, so this vote is on
whether or not to allow commas.

To summarise the arguments:

1. In favour of both space and comma
   - comma is used in some other non-CIF contexts as a list
delimiter

2. Against comma:
   - A single type of separator makes the grammar simpler
   - Space is used everywhere else in CIF as a separator
(consistency)
   - Comma can then be used in non-delimited strings

Space only: Nick, James (Nick is here)
Comma and Space: ?

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:30 PM, James Hester
<jamesrhester@gmail.com> wrote:
     More specifically, CIF1.1 excludes square brackets
     as the first character in a non-delimited string.

     On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:33 AM, James Hester
     <jamesrhester@gmail.com> wrote:
           Dear Herbert: as CIF 1.1 doesn't define
           lists, I'm not sure why you suggest that
           the example below is a valid tag.

           On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:36 AM, Herbert
           J. Bernstein
           <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> wrote:
                 Sorry something got lost in
                 the prior message.  It
                 should have
                 read:

                       Dear Colleagues,

                        Back to the
                       question of
                       commas.  If you
                       accept the
                       desirability of
                       having a CIF
                       1.5, commas in
                       lists become
                       very useful.
                        Someone with
                       a CIF 1.1 editor
                       will be able to
                       prepare a CIF
                       1.5 file for
                       many
                       useful cases by
                       doing all lists
                       with commas and
                       no embedded
                       blanks
                       as long as they
                       can make their
                       lists fit on
                       single lines.
                        In CIF 1.1

                       [[1,2,3],[4,5,6],[7,8,9]]

                       is a valid value
                       for a tag, but

                       [[1 2 3] [4 5 6]
                       [7 8 9]]

is not.


No, neither example is a valid CIF 1.1 tag.  CIF 1.1
explicitly excludes brackets as the first character
of a non-delimited string.


           Having the option of commas
           in lists will help to smooth
           the
           transition for at least some
           people.



--
T +61 (02) 9717 9907
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148




--
T +61 (02) 9717 9907
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148




--
T +61 (02) 9717 9907
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148

   ____________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
ddlm-group mailing list
ddlm-group@iucr.org
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group




_______________________________________________
ddlm-group mailing list
ddlm-group@iucr.org
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group




--
T +61 (02) 9717 9907
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148

_______________________________________________
ddlm-group mailing list
ddlm-group@iucr.org
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group