[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Wrapping up the elide discussion
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Wrapping up the elide discussion
- From: James Hester <jamesrhester@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 09:20:34 +1100
- In-Reply-To: <4D457772.1000909@rcsb.rutgers.edu>
- References: <AANLkTi=ATdNovWFiecEwDrbtMdTwZ7guvYuBCGrdnb-i@mail.gmail.com><4D404DAA.8070804@mcmaster.ca><a06240802c96600c48956@192.168.2.102><a06240800c9668e1faa7c@192.168.2.102><a06240802c9674292646e@192.168.2.102><4D41C6E7.2040109@rcsb.rutgers.edu><a06240800c967b204830b@192.168.2.102><alpine.BSF.2.00.1101282147550.61818@epsilon.pair.com><a06240800c96b125695f2@192.168.2.102><4D457772.1000909@rcsb.rutgers.edu>
I believe that proposal F has the most support in this group and among the voting COMCIFS members. I reach this conclusion by assuming that Ralf will prefer F and Brian and myself prefer F'. I will shortly post a draft of the proposed change for technical comment prior to requesting a COMCIFS vote. James On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 1:36 AM, John Westbrook <jwest@rcsb.rutgers.edu> wrote: > I concur with Herbert and opt for the option F of those under consideration. > > I would appreciate an example of how to embed a triple quoted text section > verbatim within a triple quoted section. This is an issue for dictionary > examples. Does the proposal include both """ and ''' so that the string > """'''my verbatim text'''""" is treated as '''my verbatim text'''? > > John > > > On 1/30/11 9:00 AM, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote: >> If the choice is only between F and F', I vote for F. >> >> To clarify: >> >> James' F' proposal was: >> >> "The datavalue is obtained from the triple-quoted string in two steps: >> (1) All instances of<backslash><eol> are removed from the string >> where the<backslash> is not preceded by another<backslash> >> (2) All other instances of<backslash><eol> are replaced with<eol> >> >> "This means that a sequence of n backslashes followed by newline is >> replaced by a sequence of n-1 backslashes followed by newline, except >> if there is one backslash before the newline, in which case both >> newline and backslash are removed. Triple quote sequences are elided >> by inserting a<backslash><eol> sequence between<delimiter> >> characters to break up the triple delimiter sequence. Note also that >> backslash has no special meaning if not in a sequence finishing with >> <eol>." >> >> Simon's F proposal was >> >> "If you're looking to base CIF extensions on established mechanisms, >> why not adopt >> the minimal \(newline) and \\ escape sequences, which in essence are >> the same as >> the established CIF line-folding protocol (just dropping the initial >> \ following the opening >> delimiter and formalising the protocol as an inherent part of the >> spec). Afterall, I beleive you >> have already been using it, or at least interpreted it, as a means to >> escape 'semicolon delimiters' within >> semicolon-delimited values (I seem to recall discussions that >> identified an issue with the published 'trip tests' >> relating to line folding)." >> >> Under Simon's F proposal >> >> """\\\ >> """ >> >> would mean one backslash (no trailing new line) >> >> and >> >> """\\ >> """ >> >> would mean one backslash followed by a newline >> >> and >> >> """\\ >> >> """ >> >> would mean one backslash followed by two newlines >> >> while under James' F' >> >> """\\\ >> """ >> >> would mean two backslashes (no trailing newline) >> >> and >> >> """\\ >> """ >> >> would mean one backslash (no trailing newline) >> >> and >> >> """\\ >> >> """ >> >> would mean one backslash followed by a newline >> >> >> While either proposal could, of course, be implemented, to me, >> Simon's proposal is seems complete and more consistent with >> common programming practice in handling backslash elides >> >> I agree with James that it is time to make a choice and move >> on. I just hope, if we cannot follow complete Python >> practice, we at least take F, the proposal that is more >> consistent with Python practice. >> >> >> >> At 7:57 AM -0500 1/30/11, Frances C. Bernstein wrote: >>> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 23:40:58 +1100 >>> From: James Hester<jamesrhester@gmail.com> >>> Reply-To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries >>> <ddlm-group@iucr.org> >>> To: ddlm-group<ddlm-group@iucr.org> >>> Subject: [ddlm-group] Wrapping up the elide discussion >>> >>> Dear DDLm-ers, >>> >>> This latest round of discussion started as an attempt to find >>> consensus on an elide system for CIF2 triple-quoted strings. I have >>> asked everybody to contribute their preferences, and now that John W >>> and Ralf have replied to me off-list regarding their preferences for >>> elides, we are in a position to read the tea-leaves and determine a >>> consensus solution. I can report that Ralf, while preferring the full >>> Python approach (proposal P) will accept a solution that allows >>> arbitrary strings to be included in a CIF file. John W prefers a >>> solution involving minimal changes to current syntax. >>> >>> So our top preferences are as follows: >>> >>> Herbert: P, otherwise F with conditions >>> Brian: F' and E, P least preferable >>> James: F' and F, P unacceptable >>> Ralf: P best, A,B,E,F,F' OK >>> John W: A, B or F' (my interpretation of minimal changes - John feel >>> free to say otherwise) >>> >>> It appears that all but Herbert would be prepared to vote for F', and >>> even Herbert is prepared to consider F. No other proposal reaches a >>> similar level of acceptance among voting members (and I note that >>> non-voting members are also strongly in the F/F' camp). I would >>> therefore like to focus discussion on F' and F as the two choices most >>> likely to succeed. >>> >>> The single point in favour of F' as opposed to F is that the sequence >>> <backslash><backslash> has no meaning, which makes it simpler to >>> include backslash-rich text (eg LaTeX or RTF). This continues to be >>> of particular concern among our journal colleagues. >>> >>> The single point that some consider to be in favour of F relative to >>> F' is that it is a proper subset of Python syntax. >>> >>> If no consensus can be achieved following a small period for comment >>> within this group, I propose voting between F or F', followed by a >>> formal vote at COMCIFS level to accept the resulting elide system as >>> an amendment to the current CIF2 standard. >>> >>> James. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> > > -- > ****************************************************************** > John Westbrook, Ph.D. > Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey > Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology > 610 Taylor Road > Piscataway, NJ 08854-8087 > e-mail: jwest@rcsb.rutgers.edu > Ph: (732) 445-4290 Fax: (732) 445-4320 > ****************************************************************** > _______________________________________________ > 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
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ddlm-group] Wrapping up the elide discussion (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- References:
- Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed) (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). . (David Brown)
- Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. .. .. . (John Westbrook)
- Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. .. .. .. .. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Wrapping up the elide discussion (John Westbrook)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Wrapping up the elide discussion
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Wrapping up the elide discussion
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Wrapping up the elide discussion
- Index(es):