[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes
- From: Nick Spadaccini <nick@csse.uwa.edu.au>
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:55:35 +0800
- Authentication-Results: postfix;
- In-Reply-To: <20091110072125.L55567@epsilon.pair.com>
Correct, if 1 is selected then 0 is moot. I prefer {} and [] reserved AND no [] or punctuation in data names. I know that is not being offered as an option, but I would still like to have the question I posed previously answered. Are we going make it impossible to cast data names into target code identifiers by allowing embedded punctuation? I must say this would completely cripple the existing dREL parser and require a significant re-design and rethink. I suspect it will inhibit many people using scripting languages to take dREL code and cast it in to running code. On 10/11/09 8:29 PM, "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> wrote: > I am neutral on option 0 as long as we make a clear rule for both software > writers and users to follow. Note that option 0 becomes moot as a > practical matter if we restrict ourselves to just {}, but becomes a very > real issue once [] becomes a delimiter. > > So so far the vote is: > > James and Herbert: 1 - 3 - 2 - 4 > James: No on 0 > Herbert: Neutral on 0 > > > ===================================================== > 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 Tue, 10 Nov 2009, James Hester wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:30 AM, Herbert J. Bernstein >> <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> wrote: >>> Dear Colleagues, >>> >>> I am coping with the rapid ebb and flow of what delimiters will be >>> used for CIF2 by providing controls for both CIFtbx_4 and CBFlib_9 >>> to turn on or off sensitivity to (), [] and {} delimiters separately, >>> so I can deal with whatever the final decision is by changing the >>> defaults, ... >> >> So I guess you have a proof of concept for whatever we decide on. >> >>> BUT we really do have to settle this. Ignoring the comma, quote and >>> colon issues, Since 2007 we have now gone through use of a of (), [], and >>> {} as reserved delimiters, use of just () and {}, and use of just {}. It >>> is time to simply make a firm and final decision. >> >> To be fair, it is only since August this year that there has been any flux. >> >>> We have dictionaries to write and code to implement. I have already >>> delayed delivery of software to deal with this, and I really don't like >>> delaying delivery of software. >>> >>> The use of the [] in CIF 1 dictionary category name is well-established. >>> I prefer to minimize the impact on handling existing dictionaries in a >>> CIF2 context and to stick strictly to {} as the only brackets in the >>> set of reserved delimiters and to allow both () and [] in non-delimited >>> strings and data names. So let us have another straw vote: >>> >>> Option 1: {} will be reserved, but [] and () will not be reserved; or >>> Option 2: {} and [] will be reserved, but () will not be reserved; or >>> Option 3: {} and () will be reserved, but [] will not be reserved; or >>> Option 4: {}, () and [] will all be reserved >>> >>> I suggest preferences voting noting if any are fatal to anyone. >>> >>> My preferences are in decreasing order: 1 then 3 and 2 then 4, but, as >>> long as we settle this for once and for all, I can live with any of them. >> >> Unfortunately your options exclude allowing brackets both inside >> datanames/non-delimited strings and as list/table delimiters. In >> light of Nick's email I suggest an additional formulation: >> >> 0. Make it possible to detect missing whitespace after datanames and >> non-delimited text strings if the following datavalue is a list or >> table? (Yes/No) >> >> If "Yes": which of the above options do you prefer? >> If "No": which of the above options would you prefer if the majority >> prefer "Yes" as an answer to question 0? >> >> I vote "No" (don't make it possible to detect whitespace) and >> preferences same as Herbert (due to already existing square brackets >> in datanames). >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > ddlm-group mailing list > ddlm-group@iucr.org > http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group 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:
- Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes (James Hester)
- References:
- Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] UTF-8 versus extended ASCII
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes
- Index(es):