[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P. .
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P. .
- From: "Bollinger, John C" <John.Bollinger@STJUDE.ORG>
- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:54:23 -0600
- Accept-Language: en-US
- acceptlanguage: en-US
- In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikReSDV23THOOXBA2mhnq8O1-jF79_zQRbDp4Q8@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <AANLkTi=kadbHikjabDyioDOw=L_pthGORgi6w2b45yX6@mail.gmail.com><alpine.BSF.2.00.1102220644270.84613@epsilon.pair.com><417719.45449.qm@web87006.mail.ird.yahoo.com><alpine.BSF.2.00.1102220741480.84613@epsilon.pair.com><301639.7573.qm@web87001.mail.ird.yahoo.com><alpine.BSF.2.00.1102220845481.84613@epsilon.pair.com><228483.70348.qm@web87004.mail.ird.yahoo.com><710426.91151.qm@web87002.mail.ird.yahoo.com><alpine.BSF.2.00.1102221522040.36016@epsilon.pair.com><639597.72610.qm@web87009.mail.ird.yahoo.com><AANLkTikReSDV23THOOXBA2mhnq8O1-jF79_zQRbDp4Q8@mail.gmail.com>
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 4:55 PM, James Hester wrote: >I am trying to focus relentlessly on a particular and very real >technical issue. I repeat that I am not concerned about the >transformation from surface syntax to a sequence of characters. I >accept that that is well-defined and unambiguous for all proposals on >the table. If you think that IDLE can resolve this problem, you >haven't understood my question. > >My question relates to the next step: how does the CIF application >downstream from the parser interpret this sequence of characters? >Under all previous incarnations of CIF, it was safe to assume that no >artefacts of syntactical representation were left in the string, so >the string had purely domain-specific meaning. However, with the >introduction of raw strings, <backslash><delimiter> will escape the >delimiter, but the <backslash> is required to remain in the string. I'm good this far. >So the downstream application must decide between artefacts of the >syntactical representation (<backslash><delimiter>) that have remained >in raw strings, and domain-specific character sequences >(<backslash><delimiter>). And this is where the disconnect occurs. I hold, and I interpret Herbert and Simon also to hold, that it is incorrect to characterize the backslash in the parsed data value as an artifact: it is rather an intended member of the string's character data. Backslashes in Python raw strings serve simultaneously as elides and character data. If an lexical-level eliding backslash is not intended to be part of an application-level data value, then raw string syntax is not suitable for expressing that value. This is an odd and I think confusing feature that I am not eager to add to CIF, but I don't think it creates any technical ambiguity. > Here those examples are again (remember >this is the character sequence after syntactic processing): > > <start> I have no idea what the last characters of this string are\"<finish> > <start> Does this string have two\""" or three internal quotes?<finish> > >Assume the domain-specific meaning of <backslash><quote> when found in >a datavalue is to accent the letter preceding the <backslash>. > >Does the first string finish with a double quote, or with an accented e? The domain-specific meaning is that it ends with an accented e. >Does the second string contain an accented o, followed by two double >quotes, or a letter o followed by three quotes? The domain-specific meaning is that it contains an accented o, followed by two quotes. 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
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P. . (James Hester)
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P. .
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P. .
- Index(es):