[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Relationship of CIF2 to legacy platforms
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Relationship of CIF2 to legacy platforms
- From: Joe Krahn <krahn@niehs.nih.gov>
- Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:21:14 -0400
- In-Reply-To: <279aad2a0910281442y45b9deafvf4eefbb1940fba9c@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <279aad2a0910260542id9c0209sb8d25ae53771ceaa@mail.gmail.com> <4AE84F87.8090104@mcmaster.ca><279aad2a0910281442y45b9deafvf4eefbb1940fba9c@mail.gmail.com>
IMHO, even though Fortran is not dead yet, it's quirky I/O semantics should not be an important consideration for CIF2. I still write Fortran code, so I am not suggesting that Fortran code be neglected. However, still using Fortran should have a modern compiler that supports STREAM I/O (including GFortran), which avoids these text I/O problems. If you have old software that you don't want to maintain, there can always be a CIF2-to-CIF1 utility, so that the old program will still work as-is. For new code, it really only makes sense to use Fortran for number crunching, and just use a C library to do CIF I/O. Joe Krahn James Hester wrote: > By 'systems' I had in mind computer operating systems and programming > environments, in particular multilingual support and Fortran. So, for > example, as Herbert's replies have been indicating, Fortran behaviour > continues to influence the CIF standard. > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 1:04 AM, David Brown <idbrown@mcmaster.ca> wrote: >> James asks whether we should require CIF2 to support legacy systems. I am >> not sure what James means by 'systems'. Are these datafiles or programs? >> That is to say is the queston 'should CIF2 applications be able to read >> legacy CIFs?', or 'should legacy CIF1 programs be able to read CIF2 >> datafiles?'? >> >> The answer to the first question is definitely 'yes'. It is part of the >> mandate of CIF2 that its programs should be able to process the existing >> archive so that the archive can take advantage of the enhanced functions of >> DDLm. The CIF2 dictionaries will alias all the datanames appearing in the >> CIF1 dictionaries in a way that makes such reading easy. >> >> The answer to the second question is almost certainly no, at least in cases >> where the CIF data file makes use of the added syntax features. All the >> datanames in CIF1.0 dictionaries differ from those in the CIF2 dictionary by >> not using a period at the end of the category part of the name and in some >> cases the names differ in other ways. There would be no point in trying to >> produce CIF2 compatible CIF1 dictionaries, since the CIF1 dictionaries are >> poorly designed for maintenance and have poor aliasing features. >> >> David >> >> >> James Hester wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> I think it would be helpful to make a policy decision regarding our >> treatment of legacy systems in CIF2.0. This concerns first and >> foremost Fortran derived line-length constraints, but may impact on >> the encoding discussion in deciding which encodings might get some >> special treatment. There may be other such issues as well. >> We have a few choices: >> >> 1. Disregard legacy system issues when designing CIF2, on the basis >> that such systems can continue to use CIF1 and will eventually >> disappear at about the same time that it does (sort of like ASCII and >> Fortran...) >> >> 2. Continue to support legacy systems on the basis that we don't want >> to deny such systems the chance to partake of the raw unadulterated >> goodness of CIF2, or perhaps more seriously that such legacy systems >> are integral to CIF2 takeup. >> >> What do you think? >> >> James. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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] Relationship of CIF2 to legacy platforms (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Relationship of CIF2 to legacy platforms (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Relationship of CIF2 to legacy platforms (David Brown)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Relationship of CIF2 to legacy platforms (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF header
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] New syntax: 'marker' characters
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Relationship of CIF2 to legacy platforms
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Relationship of CIF2 to legacy platforms
- Index(es):