[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] CIF2 Syntax all wrapped up?
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF2 Syntax all wrapped up?
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:13:51 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
In view of the many messages in that last thread that included boht syntax and reasons forthe choices, it might be a good idea to recap the syntax portion ofthat dicussion: 1. It begain on 9 Deb ith Biran asking us to reconsider allowing punctiation characters in data names. 2. I responded by suggesting allowing _all_ non-conflicting punctuation in data names. 3. David Brown focused the discussion on square brackets 4. John Westbrook also asked for square bracket support 5. James and Nick opposed including any additional characters 6. After a long exchange about aliases, I suggested we simply extend the definition of all array and list tags to include the automatic definition of the tags referencing their elements as a way to bring in the square brackets 7. David and Joe agreed on the need for square brackets 8. John agreed with the automatic definition of the tags for the elements 9. There was a discussion of the initial index issue and how to specify an initial index -- with a tag or with a range or both 10. Nick initially opposed the idea of automatically defining the element tags, but yielded, provided we did not define the element tags explicitly in the dictionary 11. James then supported the idea under the mistaken assumption that Nick had proposed it. 12. Nick then opposed the idea of having a starting index So where we are is: There now seems to be general agreement that when we define an array or list in the dictionary, all the element tags will automatically be available to the users We still have not settled on how/if to specify the necessary starting index, with the following alternatives on the table: 1. Don't specifiy the starting index array-by-array, just lock it in at 0 or 1 for all arrays and lists; or 2. Do specify the starting index with a range or with a separate tag or both. I support allowing an array-dimension by array-dimension specification of a starting index. I can live with either a range or a separate tag or both. -- 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 email@example.com ===================================================== On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, James Hester wrote: > Dear DDLm-ers, > > Am I correct in assuming that everyone is satisfied with the square-bracket > syntax recently proposed by Nick? If so, I believe there is only one > significant outstanding issue, that of being allowed to put whitespace > between the key and the full colon, and the full colon and the value, in a > table. I agree with Joe that no extra syntactic complexity is introduced by > allowing (not mandating) whitespace to appear in these locations. If > nobody objects, I would like to suggest that we alter the standard to allow > such whitespace. > > James. > -- > T +61 (02) 9717 9907 > F +61 (02) 9717 3145 > M +61 (04) 0249 4148 > >
_______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- [ddlm-group] CIF2 Syntax all wrapped up? (James Hester)