[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 protected]>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF2 Syntax all wrapped up?
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <[email protected]>
- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:43:23 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]><[email protected]>
In a data file, empty lists and tables will be very useful, just as
null values are useful.
I would suggest that the rules for comments be uniform in or out of
lists and table -- if a '#' occurs after the completion of a token,
it starts a comment that continues to the end of the line, as in
[1,#one
2, #two
3 #three
,4 #four
]
I thought we put aside the line-joining issues for future discussion
to get this document out.
I see no reason to require quoting of a key if the result is unambiguous.
=====================================================
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 Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Joe Krahn wrote:
> There have been no answers for:
> 1) Are empty tables or lists are valid?
> 2) What are the rules for comments within lists and tables?
> 3) What exactly does "implied line joining" mean in the TABLE definition?
> 4) Why require single or double quotes for table index strings, rather
> than just follow the normal quoting rules?
>
> Some of these are more technical details compared to the other issues.
> These came up while I was working on a big CIF2 regular-expression,
> where parsing details have to be considered more carefully.
>
> Thanks,
> Joe Krahn
>
> 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
> [email protected]
> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
>
>
>
> [*** Normal Termination ***]
>
_______________________________________________
ddlm-group mailing list
[email protected]
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- [ddlm-group] CIF2 Syntax all wrapped up? (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] CIF2 Syntax all wrapped up? (Joe Krahn)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF2 Syntax all wrapped up?
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF2 Syntax all wrapped up?
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF2 Syntax all wrapped up?
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF2 Syntax all wrapped up?
- Index(es):

