[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Use of elides in strings
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Use of elides in strings
- From: Joe Krahn <krahn@niehs.nih.gov>
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:53:07 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <279aad2a0911230240q278ab08fqc09349148202bed9@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <C7306520.1258E%nick@csse.uwa.edu.au> <572182.92308.qm@web87003.mail.ird.yahoo.com><279aad2a0911230240q278ab08fqc09349148202bed9@mail.gmail.com>
I think the solution is to define the CIF2 syntax in a way that allows more flexibility in the software implementation. IMHO, if you are going to leave the reverse-solidus intact, you should leave the quotes intact as well, because the elides are dependent on the quoting context. Obviously, RCSB software is designed in a way that they prefer all character conversions at the dictionary level. Other developers want the conversion done at the same time quotes are removed, so it can be done in the correct quoting context. It should be possible to allow both approaches, with syntax definitions something like this: Within quoted strings, the following rules apply: 1) all close-quote definitions include the look-behind assertion that they are not preceded by an odd number of ASCII reverse solidus characters. 2) By default, <REVERSE SOLIDUS><REVERSE SOLIDUS> represents <REVERSE SOLIDUS>, and <REVERSE SOLIDUS><CLOSE QUOTE> represents <CLOSE QUOTE>. 3) It is implementation dependent whether the conversions defined in #2 are applied at the file I/O formatting level (i.e. parser on input). 4) An implementation may override the default conversions in #2, but should be avoided in most cases to maintain compatibility. Joe James Hester wrote: > The outstanding issue seems to be around where in the process these > elides get stripped; Herb and John argue that it should be possible to > do this in an optional way at the dictionary stage. As I've already > indicated, I don't think that it is that straightforward. > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:35 PM, SIMON WESTRIP > <simonwestrip@btinternet.com> wrote: >> So at the risk of repeating myself, at this stage there seems to be majority >> acceptance of >> what I've been refering to as context-sensitive treatment of elides: >> >> Using the trivial example of _label "A\"BC" >> >> James and Nick would return A"BC >> >> Herb and John would return A\"BC >> >> I would return A"BC >> >> I wont address Herb's examples as I performed a similar exercise back in >> THREAD3 >> which was then received with a different opinion :-) >> > _______________________________________________ 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] Use of elides in strings (SIMON WESTRIP)
- References:
- Re: [ddlm-group] Use of elides in strings (Nick Spadaccini)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Use of elides in strings (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Use of elides in strings (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF header
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF header
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Use of elides in strings
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Use of elides in strings
- Index(es):