[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 <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF2 Syntax all wrapped up?
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:43:23 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <4B2FA7B4.2030703@niehs.nih.gov>
- References: <279aad2a0912201941p7f0c3a18idd4eb6c99f41ace6@mail.gmail.com><4B2FA7B4.2030703@niehs.nih.gov>
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 yaya@dowling.edu ===================================================== 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 > ddlm-group@iucr.org > http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group > > > > [*** Normal Termination ***] > _______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list ddlm-group@iucr.org 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):