Discussion List Archives

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

Re: [ddlm-group] Space as a list item separator




On 28/11/09 7:47 PM, "James Hester" <jamesrhester@gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems that most of us are in favour of spaces as separators, with Herbert
> at least in favour of spaces and commas.  Some things to decide:
> 
> 1. Do we want spaces and commas, or only spaces?
> 2. Space syntax: while all primitive values should be separated from
> neighbouring primitive values by spaces, what about compound values (i.e.
> lists).  So for example, is
> 
> [[1 2 3][4 5 6]] 
> 
> acceptable or should it be
> 
> [[1 2 3] [4 5 6]] ?

Many languages will simply return a fatal error. However Herb quite
correctly says we can infer what was intended. This is equivalent to the
case when [[1,2,3][4,5,6]] from which we infer [[1,2,3],[4,5,6]].

> (I have added a space between the neighbouring lists in the second version).
> 
> 3.  If commas are acceptable, we need to decide on the two cases that I
> brought up recently: are multiple commas in a row acceptable (like [1,,2,3])? 
> Are trailing commas acceptable - [1,2,3,]?  Herbert appears to favour
> inferring a missing value in these cases, and Nick thinks they should both be
> syntax errors.  I favour Nick's interpretation, and Herbert's interpretations
> could then be coercion rules.  Of course, if we drop commas altogether, this
> is a moot point.

Spaces would make this discussion a moot point. However the comma has
support so addressing this question is important. Herb suggests the values
inserted are ? or . These are two quite different entities. The ? indicates
there is a value but it is unknown, and often the default can be used. The .
indicates there is no value that makes sense here.

Consider [1.2(3),"a flag",,key1,'Hello'], then in this case I simply have no
idea what the type could be, never mind the value. In such a case what would
? actually mean? There are defaults for defined data items, but none for
types.

My view of this is [1,,2,3] is an error because you have no way to know what
to substitute in for a value. [1,2,3,] can be handled as an error, though a
common coercion is in to [1,2,3], where the trailing , is treated as an
unnecessary extra character.

> 
> My votes would be:
> 
> For 1: prefer spaces only, but absolutely no problems with including commas if
> that is what is preferred by the rest of you.  My preference for spaces only
> is entirely for simplicity and consistency with the rest of the CIF syntax.
> For 2: allow non-primitive values to have no space between them
> For 3: as I said, these examples should be syntax errors.
> 
> Simon: I sincerely hope we have not dropped space as a separator in CIF2; we
> have reduced its role as a delimiter, which makes it possible to recover from
> certain syntax errors and ever so slightly simplifies the grammar.
> 
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:01 PM, SIMON WESTRIP <simonwestrip@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>> I had been under the assumption that the separation of list items by a comma
>> was 'set in stone'
>> (and was one reason for dropping the CIF1 syntax of requiring space after
>> data values),
>> but if its up for negotiation I would opt for using the space as a separator
>> as elsewhere in the CIF,
>> partly because then a list can essentially be treated much like a single-item
>> loop - i.e. same basic parsing
>> of <value><space><value><space>...
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Simon
>> 
>> 
>> From: Herbert J. Bernstein <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
>> 
>> To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
>> Cc: Nick.Spadaccini@uwa.edu.au
>> Sent: Friday, 27 November, 2009 11:43:10
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Space as a list item separator
>> 
>> Dear Colleagues,
>> 
>>    I have no objection to accepting either comma or whitespace
>> as a valid separator in a list.  I can't object -- I have been
>> coding to that standard since 1997, and now would only have to
>> remove the message generated for the case of the space.  We already
>> accept multiple glyphs as valid separators at all levels:
>> 
>>   whitespace itself it one of several character sequences in rather
>> complex combinations:  any number of blanks, tabs, newlines and comments.
>> The comma itself is handled in a complex way.  We accept (or should accept)
>> any whitespace before and after a comma as valid, as in
>> {a,b} versus {a , b }.  Adding the option of leaving out the comma
>> itself and just having the whitespace as the separator make just
>> as much sense.
>> 
>>   I see nothing to be gained by now forbidding the comma.  The meaning of
>> {a,,b,} is the same as {a,.,b,.} or {a,?,b,?} or, under this new (and I think
>> more sensibsle and realistic approach) {a . b .} or {a ? b ?}.
>> 
>>   The blank reads particularly well in dealing with vectors and matrices. The
>> comma reads well when dealing with strings.
>> 
>>   I think we would do best with both as valid alternatives (no error, no
>> warning for either one).
>> 
>>   Regards,
>>     Herbert =====================================================
>>  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 Fri, 27 Nov 2009, SIMON WESTRIP wrote:
>> 
>>> At first glance, you're considering using space instead of commas as list
>>> separators?
>>> which is not so far away from the CIF1 requirement of space following a
>>> delimiter?
>>> 
>>> But I'm only on my first cup of coffee this morning :-)
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________________________
>>> From: Nick Spadaccini <nick@csse.uwa.edu.au>
>>> To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
>>> Sent: Friday, 27 November, 2009 7:46:44
>>> Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Space as a list item separator
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 27/11/09 2:32 PM, "James Hester" <jamesrhester@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> See comments below:
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Nick Spadaccini <nick@csse.uwa.edu.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Timely email, come in just after the one I sent.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My position is if we specify the syntax then we encourage its correct use
>>> but
>>>>> acknowledge that there may be cases where one might be able to recover
>>>>> intent. But I wouldn?t encourage those cases.
>>>> 
>>>> Absolutely, which is why I would like to elevate space-separated list
>>> items to
>>>> be correct syntax rather than 'wrong but intent is clear' syntax.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You could say that token separator in lists are a or b or c, but that
>>> just
>>>>> adds a level of complexity for very little gain. The choice of comma
>>> makes it
>>>>> seamless to translate from the raw CIF data straight in to most language
>>>>> specific data declaration. The only language I know that accepts one or
>>> the
>>>>> other or both is MatLab.
>>>> 
>>>> Re ease of translation: you speak as if a viable approach to a CIF data
>>> file
>>>> is to take whole text chunks and throw them at some language interpreter,
>>>> without doing your own parse.  Quite apart from being a rather unlikely
>>>> approach, this is impossible, as without parsing you won't know where the
>>> list
>>>> finishes.  If you do do your own parse, you can populate your
>>> datastructures
>>>> directly during the parse, and what list separator was originally used in
>>> the
>>>> data file is completely irrelevant.
>>>> 
>>>> Re complexity: not sure how you are planning to deal with whitespace in
>>> the
>>>> formal grammar, but consider the following, where I have assumed that each
>>>> token 'eats up' the following whitespace.
>>>> 
>>>> <dataitem> = <dataname><whitespace>+<datavalue>
>>>> <datavalue> = {<list>|<string>}<whitespace>+
>>>> <listdatavalue> = {<list>|<string>}<whitespace>*
>>>> <list> = '[' <whitespace>* {<listdatavalue>
>>>> {<comma><whitespace>*<listdatavalue>}*}* ']'
>>>> 
>>>> If we make comma or whitespace possible separators, the last production
>>>> becomes:
>>>> <list> =  '[' <whitespace>* {<listdatavalue> {<comma or
>>>> whitespace><listdatavalue>}*}* ']'
>>>> 
>>>> This looks like no extra complexity, and from a user's point of view
>>>> whitespace as an alternative separator is simple to understand and
>>> consistent
>>>> with space as a token separator used everywhere else in CIF.  Anyway, if
>>>> reduction of grammar complexity is your goal, you can just completely
>>> exclude
>>>> commas as list separators!
>>> 
>>> Why not? Make them spaces only, and you become consistent across the board.
>>> I have to think about the possibility of pathological cases where spaces
>>> won't work. I can't think of any at the moment.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Some questions about how commas behave:
>>>> 1: is a trailing comma e.g. [1,2,3,4,] a syntax error?
>>>> 2. are two commas in a row a syntax error? E.g. [1,2,3,,4]
>>> 
>>> I would say yes to syntax error. I an easily determine they may need to be
>>> an additional list value, but can't determine what.
>>> 
>>>> Note the above productions assume that the answer to both is yes.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> What big advantage to a language is there to specify you can use a comma
>>> or
>>>>> whitespace as a token separator? Will you be happy with the first person
>>> who
>>>>> interprets this as being ok
>>>>> 
>>>>> loop_
>>>>>   _severalvalues 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 # these being the 7 values of
>>> severalvalues
>>>>> 
>>>> Note sure what you are getting at here: I am proposing the following:
>>>> 
>>>> _nicelist      [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]
>>>> 
>>>> being the same as
>>>> 
>>>> _nicelist      [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]
>>>> 
>>>>  Don't see how this relates to loops.
>>> 
>>> The point was, once you say a space and comma are equivalent token
>>> separators then will it be an interpretation that they are always so even in
>>> loops? My example was not a list, just 7 values that were separated by
>>> commas not spaces.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> James.
>>>> ------
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 27/11/09 11:41 AM, "James Hester" <jamesrhester@gmail.com
>>>>> <http://jamesrhester@gmail.com> > wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear All: looking over the list I posted previously of items left to
>>>>>> resolve, I see only one serious one outstanding: whether or not to allow
>>>>>> space as a separator between list items.  Nick has stated:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> " I will propose it has to be a comma, but make the coercion rule that
>>> space
>>>>>> separated values in a list-type object be coerced into comma separated
>>>>>> values. That is, read spaces as you want, but don't encourage them."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would like to counter-propose, as Joe did originally, that whitespace
>>> be
>>>>>> elevated to equal status with comma as a valid list separator.  I see no
>>>>>> downside to this.  Would anyone else like to speak to this issue before
>>> we
>>>>>> vote?  In particular, I would be interested to hear why Nick doesn't
>>> want to
>>>>>> encourage spaces.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>>>>> <http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/%7Enick>
>>>>> <http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/%7Enick>
>>>>> MBDP  M002
>>>>> 
>>>>> CRICOS Provider Code: 00126G
>>>>> 
>>>>> e: Nick.Spadaccini@uwa.edu.au <http://Nick.Spadaccini@uwa.edu.au>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>> <http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/%7Enick>
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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]
International Union of Crystallography

Scientific Union Member of the International Council for Science (admitted 1947). Member of CODATA, the ICSU Committee on Data. Member of ICSTI, the International Council for Scientific and Technical Information. Partner with UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in the International Year of Crystallography 2014.

ICSU Scientific Freedom Policy

The IUCr observes the basic policy of non-discrimination and affirms the right and freedom of scientists to associate in international scientific activity without regard to such factors as ethnic origin, religion, citizenship, language, political stance, gender, sex or age, in accordance with the Statutes of the International Council for Science.