[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. .
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. .
- From: Nick Spadaccini <nick@csse.uwa.edu.au>
- Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 08:46:40 +0800
- In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1009301316100.76563@epsilon.pair.com>
And there in lies the first incompatibility. _atom_site.charge +4 Is not allowed. But -4 is. In all honesty I can't see how breaking the underlying structure of a tag-value construct in the original STAR/CIF in this way actually improves any backwards compatibility to CIF1 - which I must admit I don't see as such a high priority to warrant these machinations. With my usual disclaimer that these are comments only and IUCr and your group need to work out what you want CIF to be. On 1/10/10 1:16 AM, "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> wrote: > You must, of course, quote all pluses not being used as a > concatenation operator. > > ===================================================== > 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 10:18 AM, SIMON WESTRIP wrote: >> >>> First thought is how does this work in loops? >>> >>> loop_ _item >>> 'abc' + 'def' >> >> One specific (but synthetic) example I was thinking of was along the same >> lines: >> >> loop_ >> _amino_acid.code >> _amino_acid.optical_rotation_direction >> 'ALA' + >> 'ARG' + >> 'LEU' - >> >>> But I need to check whether + is one of the characters that is not allowed >>> to start a >>> non-delimited string... >> >> It is not. Those are " ' _ $ [ { >> If the proposal is adopted then adding + to that list would reduce the added >> complications for parsing. That would be incompatible with using the >> optional leading + with numeric values, however. >> >>> Otherwise I see no reason not to explore this. >> >> I see no reason at all not to explore it. Notwithstanding the above, I have >> not yet formed an opinion on this question. >> >> >> 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 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]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- References:
- Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. .. .
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. .. .
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. .
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. .
- Index(es):