[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] LOOP versus LIST
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] LOOP versus LIST
- From: Nick Spadaccini <nick@csse.uwa.edu.au>
- Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:04:19 +0800
- Authentication-Results: postfix;
- In-Reply-To: <a06240801c76938ff335e@[192.168.2.104]>
On 6/01/10 3:04 AM, "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> wrote: > An index key is not a name, but a string, so I think it reasonable to > accept the empty string as a table index value. Agreed. > Case sensitivity is an interesting question. I would prefer case sensitive > table indices, but I suppose that matter should be discussed. Case insensitivity has always been with regard to data names and star keywords. Data values have always been case SENSITIVE. The Table, it indices and their associated values are ALL values in a CIF sense. Hence the indices of a table are data and case SENSITIVE. I think that is a consistent interpretation with CIF1 (and I think a better interpretation to have the indices as case sensitive). cheers Nick -------------------------------- Associate Professor N. Spadaccini, PhD School of Computer Science & Software Engineering The University of Western Australia t: +61 (0)8 6488 3452 35 Stirling Highway f: +61 (0)8 6488 1089 CRAWLEY, Perth, WA 6009 AUSTRALIA w3: www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~nick MBDP M002 CRICOS Provider Code: 00126G e: Nick.Spadaccini@uwa.edu.au _______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list ddlm-group@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- Re: [ddlm-group] LOOP versus LIST (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF2 Syntax all wrapped up?
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Case sensitivity
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] LOOP versus LIST
- Next by thread: [ddlm-group] Comment rules
- Index(es):