[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CIF2 syntax document for COMCIFS approval

Dear Ralf,

   I have to leave it to others to explain why they are so reluctant
to adopt the python syntax.  The unfortunate reality is that, up
until now, it has been impossible to get agreement on any complete
and consistent quoting syntax.  I suspect, if we could get everybody
together for a face-to-face or skype meeting to talk out their
concerns, this could be resolved, but, again up until now, it has not
proven possible to interest people in getting together to talk
this out.

   I am at a loss as to how to get past this roadblock.  It really would
be useful to get the community starting on use of the useful features
in CIF2.  At this rate we will have nothing to present at the Madrid
meeting.

   What would you suggest as a way to go forward?

   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 Mon, 27 Dec 2010, Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:

> Dear Herb,
>
>>    Without the treble quotes, the new quoting syntax  leaves such
>
>> large gaps in the handling of existing data sets, I would  then
>> have to change my vote to "no".   Personally, I would prefer
>> to  simply adopt the python quoting syntax in its entirety including
>> both unicode  and raw string support, but I cannot see that
>> happening
>
> Why is this seen as a big problem? It has already been solved by many
> people many times.
> I'd be happy to refer directly to Python in the CIF2 specification,
> in its entirety (but of course only for the new triple-quoted strings
> to preserve backward compatibility).
> That would solve all practical issues with one sentence. Later, in case
> of doubt about technical details, we can simply look at the Python
> implementation.
> The Python implementation is mature and time tested. I think most people
> will be far less surprised if we adopt the Python semantics instead
> of making a mistake.
>
> Ralf
> _______________________________________________
> comcifs mailing list
> comcifs@iucr.org
> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/comcifs
>
_______________________________________________
comcifs mailing list
comcifs@iucr.org
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/comcifs

Reply to: [list | sender only]