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

I am very sorry to hear that. �In my shop, dealing with this one change will involve 1-3 person-months of recoding to make commas optional and
to introduce warning messages when they are encountered and in redoing dictionaries and test cases. �What a pointless waste. �I hope this
group will complete its work in the near future, so we can have some
chance of having something stable to work against.

=====================================================
�Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science
� Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121
� � � �Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769

� � � � � � � � +1-631-244-3035
� � � � � � � � [email protected]
=====================================================

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, James Hester wrote:

Counting up the votes so far on the list delimiter question I get:

Space and comma: David, Herbert
Space only: Simon, Nick, James, Joe (?)
Agnostic: Brian
Unknown: John

It looks like the spaces have it, although I have perhaps over-interpreted
Joe's reply.��

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:57 AM, David Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
� � �MY VOTE IS FOR 1 (SPACE AND COMMA) because commas are better
� � �visually.� Not a strong argument and I would not give my vote a
� � �large weighting.� I can live with 2 as well.

� � �David

� � �James Hester wrote:
Dear CIF2 people: the time has come to vote on the list item
separator issue.� Firstly: as far as I know, nobody is against
space as a separator, so spaces will be possible list item
separators.� Some may be against commas, so this vote is on
whether or not to allow commas.

To summarise the arguments:

1. In favour of both space and comma
�� - comma is used in some other non-CIF contexts as a list
delimiter

2. Against comma:
�� - A single type of separator makes the grammar simpler
�� - Space is used everywhere else in CIF as a separator
(consistency)
�� - Comma can then be used in non-delimited strings

Space only: Nick, James (Nick is here)
Comma and Space: ?

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:30 PM, James Hester
<[email protected]> wrote:
� � �More specifically, CIF1.1 excludes square brackets
� � �as the first character in a non-delimited string.

� � �On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:33 AM, James Hester
� � �<[email protected]> wrote:
� � � � � �Dear Herbert: as CIF 1.1 doesn't define
� � � � � �lists, I'm not sure why you suggest that
� � � � � �the example below is a valid tag.

� � � � � �On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:36 AM, Herbert
� � � � � �J. Bernstein
� � � � � �<[email protected]> wrote:
� � � � � � � � �Sorry something got lost in
� � � � � � � � �the prior message. �It
� � � � � � � � �should have
� � � � � � � � �read:

� � � � � � � � � � � �Dear Colleagues,

� � � � � � � � � � � ��Back to the
� � � � � � � � � � � �question of
� � � � � � � � � � � �commas. �If you
� � � � � � � � � � � �accept the
� � � � � � � � � � � �desirability of
� � � � � � � � � � � �having a CIF
� � � � � � � � � � � �1.5, commas in
� � � � � � � � � � � �lists become
� � � � � � � � � � � �very useful.
� � � � � � � � � � � ��Someone with
� � � � � � � � � � � �a CIF 1.1 editor
� � � � � � � � � � � �will be able to
� � � � � � � � � � � �prepare a CIF
� � � � � � � � � � � �1.5 file for
� � � � � � � � � � � �many
� � � � � � � � � � � �useful cases by
� � � � � � � � � � � �doing all lists
� � � � � � � � � � � �with commas and
� � � � � � � � � � � �no embedded
� � � � � � � � � � � �blanks
� � � � � � � � � � � �as long as they
� � � � � � � � � � � �can make their
� � � � � � � � � � � �lists fit on
� � � � � � � � � � � �single lines.
� � � � � � � � � � � ��In CIF 1.1

� � � � � � � � � � � �[[1,2,3],[4,5,6],[7,8,9]]

� � � � � � � � � � � �is a valid value
� � � � � � � � � � � �for a tag, but

� � � � � � � � � � � �[[1 2 3] [4 5 6]
� � � � � � � � � � � �[7 8 9]]

is not.


No, neither example is a valid CIF 1.1 tag.� CIF 1.1
explicitly excludes brackets as the first character
of a non-delimited string.


� � � � � �Having the option of commas
� � � � � �in lists will help to smooth
� � � � � �the
� � � � � �transition for at least some
� � � � � �people.



--
T +61 (02) 9717 9907
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148




--
T +61 (02) 9717 9907
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148




--
T +61 (02) 9717 9907
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148

� �____________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
ddlm-group mailing list
[email protected]
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group




_______________________________________________
ddlm-group mailing list
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group