[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: Nick Spadaccini <nick@csse.uwa.edu.au>
- Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:41:56 +0800
- Authentication-Results: postfix;
- In-Reply-To: <4AEF0E98.5000002@niehs.nih.gov>
On 3/11/09 12:53 AM, "Joe Krahn" <krahn@niehs.nih.gov> wrote: > 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 Not sure what you gain by doing this. If it is pure ASCII only then the declaration of UTF-8 inhibits nothing, since ASCII is a subset. If it is not pure ASCII, then it needs to be UTF-8. I can't see how knowing in advance that it is a subset of UTF-8 or possibly the full set of UTF-8 gives you anything. cheers Nick -------------------------------- Associate Professor N. Spadaccini, PhD School of Computer Science & Software Engineering The University of Western Australia t: +61 (0)8 6488 3452 35 Stirling Highway f: +61 (0)8 6488 1089 CRAWLEY, Perth, WA 6009 AUSTRALIA w3: www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~nick MBDP M002 CRICOS Provider Code: 00126G e: Nick.Spadaccini@uwa.edu.au _______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list ddlm-group@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF header
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes
- 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):