[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] LOOP versus LIST
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] LOOP versus LIST
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 14:04:38 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <4B4379BC.4010105@niehs.nih.gov>
- References: <4B4379BC.4010105@niehs.nih.gov>
A list with lists nested to arbitrary depth can be a single data value either in a loop or just for a single tag. DDL2 make no distinction between a one-element loop and the same unlooped tag with the same value. DDL1 (see _list) and DDLm (see _definition.class) try to make a distinctions among things that are and are not permitted to be looped. I do not understand why it is desirable to make such a distinction for a single row table, following the DDL2 approach of allowing it to be handled as either _xxx.aaa data1 _xxx.bbb data2 _xxx.ccc data3 or loop_ _xxx.aaa _xxx.bbb _xxx.ccc data1 data2 data3 seem harmless to me, but DDL1 and DDLm make the distinction and a proper parser should note violations of what was specified for the category. An index key is not a name, but a string, so I think it reasonable to accept the empty string as a table index value. Case sensitivity is an interesting question. I would prefer case sensitive table indices, but I suppose that matter should be discussed. At 12:41 PM -0500 1/5/10, Joe Krahn wrote: >I assume that a list of items defined via a loop is distinct from a list >of items defined by a list. Is that correct? > >Likewise, is a list of one item distinct from a scalar value? > >Currently, CIF files don't differentiate between a one-element loop and >a scalar. For example, RCSB components.cif does not use loops for atom >data when there is only one atom. Is this stated anywhere? > >Also, is an empty string a valid TABLE index? Other CIF names require at >least one character, but my understanding is that a TABLE index is any >valid string, which includes an empty string. Strings are also >case-sensitive, so I assume that TABLE indices are also case-sensitive. > >Thanks, >Joe Krahn >_______________________________________________ >ddlm-group mailing list >ddlm-group@iucr.org >http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group -- ===================================================== 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 ===================================================== _______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list ddlm-group@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ddlm-group] LOOP versus LIST (Nick Spadaccini)
- Re: [ddlm-group] LOOP versus LIST (Joe Krahn)
- References:
- [ddlm-group] LOOP versus LIST (Joe Krahn)
- Prev by Date: [ddlm-group] Case sensitivity
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Case sensitivity
- Prev by thread: [ddlm-group] LOOP versus LIST
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] LOOP versus LIST
- Index(es):