[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: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 17:39:54 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimvmi0F3Y2=t=qQ625ASrpirk2dKh48PWKKSjfi@mail.gmail.com>
- 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><AANLkTimvmi0F3Y2=t=qQ625ASrpirk2dKh48PWKKSjfi@mail.gmail.com>
Dear James, I think it would be more appropriate to put Ralf's original proposal as well as F before COMCIFS. As I have stated several times, I prefer Ralf's original proposal to F. While either is sufficient to the limited purpose, I think full Python compatability for the treble quote construct makes the most sense long term. 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 Wed, 16 Feb 2011, James Hester wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ 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 (James Hester)
- 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)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Wrapping up the elide discussion (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Wrapping up the elide discussion
- Next by Date: [ddlm-group] Draft of proposed change to syntax document
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Wrapping up the elide discussion
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Wrapping up the elide discussion
- Index(es):