Re: Tidying up DDL1 (last time?)

[Matthew Towler <towler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

James Hester wrote:

> How about just
> putting in standard POSIX match expressions from the DDL2 dictionary?

 > The "right" solution is to
> first change _list_reference to mean the same as _item_dependent in
> DDL2, ... and then drop
> _list_mandatory (as there are only these two items in the category
> _list_mandatory serves no practical function).     

If the way to properly fix DDL1 is to make it very similar to DDL2, this 
begs the question why not leave DDL1 alone and simply move to DDL2? 
 From a programming perspective it may be simpler to enhance programs to 
support DDL2 separately from DDL1, rather than to have to simulaneously 
support both DDL1-old and DDL1-new.  Or as in practice often happens 
with enhancements to formats written by users, a mixture of the two.

Matthew Towler


_______________________________________________
cif-developers mailing list
cif-developers@iucr.org
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers