[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. .
- To: Nick.Spadaccini@uwa.edu.au, Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. .
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:14:54 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <C8CAD37A.14127%nick@csse.uwa.edu.au>
- References: <C8CAD37A.14127%nick@csse.uwa.edu.au>
We have already forbidding a variety of characters in non-quoted strings. We also have changes the original star approach when we went to bracketed constructs. This is a change fairly easily implemented at the lexical level. Both the treble quote and the \n; quote make the result very much more difficult to read. This change would make CIF consistent with python practice and allow much neater CIFS without getting into the elide issue. I don't see why allowing comments in the middle here is any worse than the comments that are allowed in the middle of bracketed constructs. ===================================================== 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 Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Nick Spadaccini wrote: > This in fact is not a DDLm issue. It is a STAR and CIF syntax issue. The > broken regex example represents 3 separate data values to a single data name > with no loop construct to protect it - hence it violates the very basis of > the syntactic structure of both CIF and STAR. Apart from that it is fine! > > You cannot parse these strings unambiguously unless you have a context that > says a data value that follows a _item_type_list.construct is completely > different to every other syntactic construct. I do not think that would not > be a wise variation to CIF2. > > The triple quote solution suggested by John is the most sensible approach, > if the semi-colon delimited text is unfavoured. > > Nick. > > > On 30/09/10 11:39 PM, "Bollinger, John C" <John.Bollinger@STJUDE.ORG> wrote: > >> On Thursday, September 30, 2010 10:18 AM, SIMON WESTRIP wrote: >> >>> First thought is how does this work in loops? >>> >>> loop_ _item >>> 'abc' + 'def' >> >> One specific (but synthetic) example I was thinking of was along the same >> lines: >> >> loop_ >> _amino_acid.code >> _amino_acid.optical_rotation_direction >> 'ALA' + >> 'ARG' + >> 'LEU' - >> >>> But I need to check whether + is one of the characters that is not allowed to >>> start a >>> non-delimited string... >> >> It is not. Those are " ' _ $ [ { >> If the proposal is adopted then adding + to that list would reduce the added >> complications for parsing. That would be incompatible with using the optional >> leading + with numeric values, however. >> >>> Otherwise I see no reason not to explore this. >> >> I see no reason at all not to explore it. Notwithstanding the above, I have >> not yet formed an opinion on this question. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> John >> -- >> John C. Bollinger, Ph.D. >> Department of Structural Biology >> St. Jude Children's Research Hospital >> >> >> Email Disclaimer: www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer >> _______________________________________________ >> ddlm-group mailing list >> ddlm-group@iucr.org >> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group > > cheers > > Nick > > -------------------------------- > Associate Professor N. Spadaccini, PhD > School of Computer Science & Software Engineering > > The University of Western Australia t: +61 (0)8 6488 3452 > 35 Stirling Highway f: +61 (0)8 6488 1089 > CRAWLEY, Perth, WA 6009 AUSTRALIA w3: www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~nick > MBDP M002 > > CRICOS Provider Code: 00126G > > e: Nick.Spadaccini@uwa.edu.au > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ddlm-group mailing list > ddlm-group@iucr.org > http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group > _______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list ddlm-group@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. . (Nick Spadaccini)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. .
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. .
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. .
- Index(es):