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

Re: [ddlm-group] CIF header

Hi all: For the benefit of future readers, could all replies on the
subject of elides please go to the appropriate thread?  This thread is
for the CIF header string.  I will reinitiate the eliding straw poll
over on that thread...

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Joe Krahn <krahn@niehs.nih.gov> wrote:
> 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.
> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply to: [list | sender only]