[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:09:14 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <15186.4610.qm@web87006.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
- References: <AANLkTim3DMuAuKxY5rVxZ46Jdt+M+Eaw+V5pFo24U5FU@mail.gmail.com><alpine.BSF.2.00.1010272003380.69742@epsilon.pair.com><AANLkTi=+pgWTQpN4_CkCgNigtO76x8g10wchpLYJpOmG@mail.gmail.com><alpine.BSF.2.00.1010272300170.23956@epsilon.pair.com><AANLkTinoFaLfwmSiA3t=7Jrm33-NcuEO5c3uAcEUzVMm@mail.gmail.com><alpine.BSF.2.00.1010280537590.39569@epsilon.pair.com><15186.4610.qm@web87006.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Dear Colleagues, Several times in the course of discussion CIF2, proposals have been opposed on grounds of conflict with STAR syntax. It would be a great help in understanding these objections if there were a document to which we could refer clearly specifying the STAR syntax. The best I have found thus far is: http://www.iucr.org/__data/iucr/cif/standard/cifstd4.html (which is taken from Acta Cryst. (1991). A47, 655-685) Is that the complete document to which we should refer? Regards, Herbert ===================================================== 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, 28 Oct 2010, SIMON WESTRIP wrote: >> --===============2119001675== > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-659398189-1288274737=:4610" > >> --0-659398189-1288274737=:4610 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Just for the record - my vote is 'yes'.=0A=0AIn line with Herbert's view, i= > t might also be worth considering that it is=0Aimpossible to specify a mult= > iline data value that includes all of the CIF =0Adelimiters.=0AGranted this= > is an unlikely scenario, but to me this is a deficiency of the base =0Asyn= > tax.=0ACIF2 provides an opportunity to deal with such issues at the syntax = > level, =0Arather than=0Avia semantics that are not part of the standard.=0A= > =0ACheers=0A=0ASimon=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom:= > Herbert J. Bernstein <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>=0ATo: Group finalising= > DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>=0ASent: Thursday, 2= > 8 October, 2010 11:08:36=0ASubject: Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenatio= > n operator vote=0A=0ADear James,=0A=0A Nothing is impossible, but the fact= > remains that for CIF2, all the uses of the =0Abackslash that had been agre= > ed to for CIF1 were explcitly rejected, largely at =0ANick's insistence tha= > t somehow we were diverging from STAR. The oddity you have =0Apointed out i= > n the "official" CIF1 syntax document is another case of Nick's =0Ainsisten= > ce which in fact diverges from CIF1 practice, existing code and existing = > =0Around-trip cases. We have somehow over the years entered an absurd neve= > r-never =0Aland in which the official CIF documents say one thing, and the = > established =0Apractice on which people do real work is something very diff= > erent.=0A=0A If you don't believe me, see the trip test at=0A=0Ahttp://www= > .iucr.org/resources/cif/software/ciftest2/ciftest_2.1/outs/ciffold/longtext= > _out.cif=0A=0A=0Awhich explicitly tests that the ;\ construct works for lin= > e folding.=0A=0A The line folding protocol is an essential reality, especi= > ally to allow CIF to =0Abe used with Fortran.=0A=0A The use of the require= > d whitespace after everything except the last token in a =0ACIF document is= > an essential reality in lexical scans of existing CIF documents.=0A=0A In= > the name of what is to me is an incomprensible adherence to a constantly = > =0Achanging and undocumented STAR standard has resulted in loss of function= > ality =0Athat is needed to keep current applications and current CIF datase= > ts in use.=0A=0A Of course these issues can be resolved. I keep accumulat= > ing fudges for CIFtbx =0Aand CBFlib to deal with them. The problem is that= > , without any COMCIFS level =0Aagreement on what the preferred fudges are, = > there is no reason to expect that =0Athe files my code reads and writes wil= > l be compatible with the files that, say, =0Ayour code reads and writes, or= > compatible with the files that, say, John =0AWestbrook's code reads and wr= > ites, almost guaranteeing that CIF is going to =0Adegenerate even more than= > it has into multiple idiosyncratic dialects. To me =0Athis seems to be th= > e antithesis of the goal of the creation of COMCIFS -- which =0Awas, as its= > name says, to maintain the CIF _standard_.=0A=0A I apologize for sounding= > so preachy and stuffy, but I really think it would be =0Aa good idea to re= > solve these issues in some commonly agreed manner and try to =0Akeep CIF as= > a common language, rather than heading further into multiple =0Adialects.= > =0A=0A Regards,=0A Herbert=0A=0A=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0AHerbert J. Bernstein, Profe= > ssor of Computer Science=0A Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 1= > 21=0A Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769=0A=0A +1-63= > 1-244-3035=0A yaya@dowling.edu=0A=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0A=0AOn Thu, 28 O= > ct 2010, James Hester wrote:=0A=0A> Dear Herbert,=0A> =0A> Thanks for your = > detailed response. I think I am failing to understand=0A> something element= > ary. I see nothing in your comments below to indicate why=0A> it would be = > impossible to use the line-folding protocol to split long lines=0A> over mu= > ltiple lines, for arbitrary CIF2 text. Additionally, I believe your=0A> fi= > rst example below would be a syntax error under both CIF1.1 and CIF2,=0A> b= > ecause the <eol><semicolon> sequence terminates the datavalue regardless of= > =0A> following text. In other words, I know of nothing in CIF1.1 to indica= > te=0A> that <eol><semicolon> terminates the datavalue only if there is whit= > espace=0A> or <EOF> after the <eol><semicolon>.=0A> =0A> If I am incorrect = > in my thinking, I would appreciate a correction expressed=0A> in terms of t= > he formal CIF1.1 grammar.=0A> =0A> James.=0A> =0A> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at = > 2:27 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein=0A> <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> wrote:=0A>= > Dear James,=0A> =0A> The line folding protocol is in section = > 26 of=0A> =0A> http://www.iucr.org/resources/cif/spec/version1.1/seman= > tics=0A> =0A> I tried to get agreement on continuing this use of the = > backslash=0A> and that was firmly and explicitly rejected, effectivel= > y=0A> removing the entire line folding protocol, which depends on it.= > =0A> Even if we restore the use of the backslash, there has been a= > =0A> significant change in the termination of a text field. In CIF= > =0A> 1.1, text field can only end with <eol>; followed either by=0A> = > whitespace or the end of a file, so the existing line folding=0A> = > protocol allows=0A> =0A> ;\=0A> this is an example of an emb= > edded text field=0A> ;\=0A> =0A> an embedded text field=0A> = > ;\=0A> =0A> ;=0A> =0A> which is no longer valid under CIF2 b= > ecause all quoted fields=0A> end on the first occurrence of their del= > imiter, and as stated in=0A> the new syntax document, "CIF2 keywords,= > data block headers,=0A> save frame headers, data names, and data val= > ues must all be=0A> separated from each other by whitespace. Whitespa= > ce not=0A> otherwise part of a CIF2 syntax element is significant onl= > y for=0A> this purpose.=0A> =0A> Reasoning: The CIF1 specificat= > ion relies implicitly on the=0A> syntactic structure of the language = > to require whitespace=0A> separators between syntax elements. The CIF= > 2 syntax no longer=0A> implicitly provides whitespace separators in s= > ome cases=0A> (notably, after most types=0A> of data values), t= > herefore the requirement is now made=0A> explicit."=0A> =0A> So= > under CIF2, the use of the elide to shield the <eol>; is=0A> explcit= > ly an error.=0A> =0A> It would be very nice to have the line folding = > back, either=0A> in the form of the use of the backslash, or by using= > the=0A> string concatenation operator.=0A> =0A> =0A> Regards,=0A> H= > erbert=0A> =0A> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0A> Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Compute= > > > [*** Terminated Message ***] > _______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list ddlm-group@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote. .
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote. .
- Index(es):