[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] New syntax: 'marker' characters
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] New syntax: 'marker' characters
- From: James Hester <jamesrhester@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:48:38 +1100
- In-Reply-To: <4AF1CDC4.3060405@niehs.nih.gov>
- References: <279aad2a0910281823tafd2e31o46e93a68e03a4c89@mail.gmail.com><4AE9BA8F.8090405@mcmaster.ca><20091029130659.X67614@epsilon.pair.com><4AEB74F4.3070405@niehs.nih.gov><279aad2a0911032016l7628a9a7paa0d6d0324b38c27@mail.gmail.com><4AF1CDC4.3060405@niehs.nih.gov>
Hi Joe and others: based on what Joe reports, it would seem pointless to add markers to the syntax, as an application can simply do a first quick non-tokenising run through a CIF file and create an index for itself if it desires efficient data extraction. I'll take up the theme of ordering elsewhere. James. On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:53 AM, Joe Krahn <krahn@niehs.nih.gov> wrote: > I use a regexp that properly handles all comments and quoting types in > CIF1, so it does not just search for the 'data_' sub-string. > > I am actually surprised that it could parse so quickly. However, this > requires parsing characters without tokenizing them; a data block is a > single regexp. A normal CIF parser may not be designed to parse without > tokenizing and storing values, so it may take some redesign to get the > same performance even in a compiled program. > > Of course, there is no reason why a given CIF implementation could not > use comments as hints for faster parsing. Even with the above argument > that fast parsing is possible, a large network-mounted file could go > slow just reading the intervening file data. However, putting the hints > in comments means that it does not need to be part of the CIF spec. > > Ordering hints are a bit different, because they affect more than just > comments. Currently, order is supposed to be irrelevant, so you could > claim that it is also just a performance hint. I have always thought > that a canonical order is useful. Most CIF software writes out "pretty" > formatted text because organization is useful when being viewed by a > human. Herbert's suggestion is to make preferred ordering an integral > part of the DDL, but avoid incorporating ordering rules into the CIF > syntax. Then, people that want ordering rules can use them, but it avoid > complicating the CIF spec. > > Joe Krahn > _______________________________________________ > ddlm-group mailing list > ddlm-group@iucr.org > http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group > -- T +61 (02) 9717 9907 F +61 (02) 9717 3145 M +61 (04) 0249 4148 _______________________________________________ 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] New syntax: 'marker' characters (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- References:
- [ddlm-group] New syntax: 'marker' characters (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] New syntax: 'marker' characters (David Brown)
- Re: [ddlm-group] New syntax: 'marker' characters (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] New syntax: 'marker' characters (Joe Krahn)
- Re: [ddlm-group] New syntax: 'marker' characters (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] New syntax: 'marker' characters (Joe Krahn)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] New syntax: 'marker' characters
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] New syntax: 'marker' characters
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] New syntax: 'marker' characters
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] New syntax: 'marker' characters
- Index(es):