[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] CIF header
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF header
- From: James Hester <jamesrhester@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:32:14 +1100
- In-Reply-To: <20091120121558.GC28347@emerald.iucr.org>
- References: <279aad2a0911192159y1140585cge8f792bf62575801@mail.gmail.com><C72C53B4.12520%nick@csse.uwa.edu.au><20091120121558.GC28347@emerald.iucr.org>
I agree with Brian's suggestion. Can other participants also indicate their agreement or alternative suggestions? James. On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Brian McMahon <bm@iucr.org> wrote: >>>> Is there a reason why it can't be #!, to make it consistent with other *nix >>>> based directives. > > As James says, #! is normally understood by Unix shells to specify > an appropriate shell interpreter, not quite what we're aiming for here. > > A characteristic initial set of bytes (file 'magic') is often used > by GUI file managers and other generic file-handling software to > associate icons or applications (in association with, or sometimes > competing against, the use of a filename extension). We use this > approach to identify the type of file uploaded in our submission > system. It's useful for that initial byte sequence to be (a) short > to facilitate rapid scanning, (b) specific to an individual file type. > For that reason we suggested for CIF 1.1 the magic string > #\#CIF_1.1 > For CBF it is > ###CBF: VERSION > > I recommend #\#CIF_2.0 to be consistent with version 1.1 and so that > generic file magic handling can map all #\#CIF_ strings to files of type > "cif". (A sophisticated file manager could extend the scan to allow for > different icons to be associated with version 1.1 and version 2 CIFs.) > It seems a pity from the viewpoint of neatness that the CIF and CBF > magic strings aren't more similar in structure. > > Brian > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 02:09:56PM +0800, Nick Spadaccini wrote: >> >> We don't need an extra character, a single hash would suffice, but I guess >> an extra character my uniquely identify it as the CIF header to a parser, >> rather than it as just a comment. An extra character also moves you away >> from an ordinary comment which is smart, to a smart comment which has its >> own unique tag. I am NOT a fan of smart comments, or comments which can be >> smart, but they seem to be to modus operandi of many systems. >> >> On 20/11/09 1:59 PM, "James Hester" <jamesrhester@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Wouldn't this cause a UNIX-style OS to try to execute 'CIF2' if >>> someone accidentally typed the filename in a command context? This is >>> not a huge problem in that it will otherwise attempt to execute >>> 'data_xxxx', and only if the file is executable. >>> >>> I guess I don't understand why we need an extra character after the >>> hash. If we really do need an extra character, why not just another >>> hash? >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Nick Spadaccini <nick@csse.uwa.edu.au> wrote: >>>> On 30/10/09 11:47 PM, "Joe Krahn" <krahn@niehs.nih.gov> wrote: >>>> >>>>> A directive embedded in an initial comment really does make sense, >>>>> because it is irrelevant once the correct parser is selected. It might >>>>> make sense to add a specific 2nd character, similar to the POSIX shell >>>>> #!. For example, the STAR format could define an initial line beginning >>>>> with #% as parsing directive rather than just a plain comment. That >>>>> makes the abuse of a comment line as a bit less of a hack. >>>> >>>> Is there a reason why it can't be #!, to make it consistent with other *nix >>>> based directives. >>>> >>>> cheers >>>> >>>> Nick > _______________________________________________ > 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] CIF header (David Brown)
- Re: [ddlm-group] CIF header (Nick Spadaccini)
- References:
- Re: [ddlm-group] CIF header (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] CIF header (Nick Spadaccini)
- Re: [ddlm-group] CIF header (Brian McMahon)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Use of elides in strings
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF header
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF header
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF header
- Index(es):