[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ddlm-group] CIF header

Nick Spadaccini wrote:
> What you have presented is not the substance of the difference in
> approaches. What this shows is by choosing to consider the elide of a
> terminal character ONLY when that is delimiting character that you get
> differences in what is returned. James and I could have argued that any "
> and ' that is elided is skipped. If that were the approach then our
> algorithm would also be consistent in returning
> "ab\"cd" -> ab"cd
> 'ab\"cd' -> ab"cd
> By the way this is the Python approach to elided terminals.
> The substance of the differences in the two approaches is what is
> consistently done with terminating characters within delimited strings and
> where is it done. We ague it is consistently done by the parser at write and
> read and the user doesn't need to see it. You say the user is responsible at
> both ends.
That has been my argument as well. I don't think it makes any sense for 
the quoting method used by the parser/writer at the I/O level to change 
how the string is encoded. Some people apparently want dictionary 
control at the lowest level, including quote-specific escape sequences.

I think we can compromise to a allow both approaches by avoiding rules 
that define how the conversions are implemented. See my post in the "Use 
of elides in strings" thread.

ddlm-group mailing list

Reply to: [list | sender only]