Discussion List Archives

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. .. .

The confusion arises from the original CIF 1.1 document which
first discusses the allow whitespace characters, and then the
syntax token <WhiteSpace>.  We should clarify it, but we
should clarify the role of whitespace both for CIF1 and CIF2,
not just in the CIF2 change document.

In any case, it appears that what we have so far _does_ permit
comments within bracketed constructs.

=====================================================
  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 Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Bollinger, John C wrote:

>
> On Thursday, September 30, 2010 2:37 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
>
>>   Working from the original DDLm/dREL spec, I did not see anything precluding comments within bracketed >costructs and have therefore programmed on the assumption that they have to be allowed.  The CIF2 spec simply >does not discuss the issue, but explcitly allows whitespace within bracketed constructs.
>>
>>   We should decide what we really want here and document it
>
> On Thursday, September 30, 2010 2:42 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote;
>> In paragraph 46, the CIF 1.1 spec says:
>>
>> 46. White space comprises all appropriate combinations of spaces, tabs, ends of lines and comments, as well as the beginning of the file.
> <WhiteSpace> are the characters able to delimit the lexical tokens.
>>
>> So, as things now stand the proposed CIF2 spec _would_ allow comments within bracketed construct because it explcitly permits whitespace in bracketed constructs.
>
> Unfortunately, the current draft of the Changes document contains a definition of "whitespace" that does not include comments.  I'm not sure how that came about or whether it has some purpose I do not see, but I find it a bit strange.  I think it would at times be useful to have comments in bracketed structures, and my existing code will allow it (in part because I didn't recognize until now that there was a question about it).
>
> Is there a reason why we should not reintroduce comments to the definition of whitespace?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> John
> --
> John C. Bollinger, Ph.D.
> Department of Structural Biology
> St. Jude Children's Research Hospital
>
>
> Email Disclaimer:  www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply to: [list | sender only]
International Union of Crystallography

Scientific Union Member of the International Science Council (admitted 1947). Member of CODATA, the ISC Committee on Data. Partner with UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in the International Year of Crystallography 2014.

International Science Council Scientific Freedom Policy

The IUCr observes the basic policy of non-discrimination and affirms the right and freedom of scientists to associate in international scientific activity without regard to such factors as ethnic origin, religion, citizenship, language, political stance, gender, sex or age, in accordance with the Statutes of the International Council for Science.

Useful links