[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: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:53:44 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <20091031161934.R64143@epsilon.pair.com>
- References: <279aad2a0910260542id9c0209sb8d25ae53771ceaa@mail.gmail.com> <4AE84F87.8090104@mcmaster.ca> <279aad2a0910281442y45b9deafvf4eefbb1940fba9c@mail.gmail.com> <4AEB127A.7000007@niehs.nih.gov><20091031161934.R64143@epsilon.pair.com>
Herbert, I am only suggesting that maintained Fortran code ought to be able to utilize F2003 STREAM I/O, supported by current versions of GFortran, Intel Fortran and Sun Fortran. Of course, I probably am not considering all of the issues. STREAM I/O avoids the need for a fixed maximum record length, but even the newest Fortran compilers have very limited UTF-8 support. Even with STREAM I/O, it is not trivial to count trailing blanks as significant. Maybe the biggest problem is UTF-8. IMHO, it makes sense for UTF-8 to be an optional encoding, rather than just declaring CIF2 is all UTF-8. This is one place where a more informative header would help. Even if CIF2 does not allow alternate encodings, it would be nice to have a flag at the top stating whether UTF-8 codes are actually used in the file. This would allow some programs to avoid UTF-8 files for the near future, and UTF-8 can still be used where it is needed (i.e. publication oriented CIF files) and still not be a road-block to other programs. Joe Herbert J. Bernstein wrote: > Dear Joe, > > This is _not_ a matter of legacy software, but of currently maintained > data collection software that happens to be written in Fortran. > > People have work to get done. The failure of CIF2 to support fortran on > a wide range of platforms will not stop those applications from doing what > they need to do, it will just further hinder the adoption of CIF in the > macromolecular community. > > 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 Fri, 30 Oct 2009, Joe Krahn wrote: > >> 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
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ddlm-group] Relationship of CIF2 to legacy platforms (Nick Spadaccini)
- 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)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Relationship of CIF2 to legacy platforms (Joe Krahn)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Relationship of CIF2 to legacy platforms (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] New syntax: 'marker' characters
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Relationship of CIF2 to legacy platforms
- 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):