[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: 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 15:42:06 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1009301525330.62875@epsilon.pair.com>
- References: <4C471374.6000100@mcmaster.ca><alpine.BSF.2.00.1007211307460.37813@epsilon.pair.com><AANLkTinyxmyKFOt=A6Cpdq=8LVsSR4+Js9xDOG+JEF--@mail.gmail.com><AANLkTimTab=b9u6nsUjd6UitRni-OgMTJNZYt1EMjrhE@mail.gmail.com><a06240804c8ca43f92cc2@[192.168.2.104]><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA5416659DEDF3@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local><alpine.BSF.2.00.1009301317510.76563@epsilon.pair.com><152994.37345.qm@web87011.mail.ird.yahoo.com><alpine.BSF.2.00.1009301525330.62875@epsilon.pair.com>
In paragraph 46, the CIF 1.1 spec says: 46. White space comprises all appropriate combinations of spaces, tabs, ends of lines and comments, as well as the beginning of the file. <WhiteSpace> are the characters able to delimit the lexical tokens. So, as things now stand the proposed CIF2 spec _would_ allow comments within bracketed construct because it explcitly permits whitespace in 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, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote: > Dear Simon, > > Working from the original DDLm/dREL spec, I did not see anything > precluding comments within bracketed costructs and have therefore > programmed on the assumption that they have to be allowed. The CIF2 > spec simply does not discuss the issue, but explcitly allows > whitespace within bracketed constructs. > > We should decide what we really want here and document it > > Regards, > 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 > yaya@dowling.edu > ===================================================== > > On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, SIMON WESTRIP wrote: > >> Dear Herbert >> >> I wasnt aware that "comments ... are allowed in the middle of bracketed >> constructs". >> Is this true? >> >> This is a genuine question (its not readily apparent from the spec I've >> been >> referring to, but I do >> seem to recall an earlier example that suggested this). >> >> On the matter of the string concatenation issue, despite the fact that much >> of my last contribution was >> light-hearted (in the spirit of celebrating the fact that the encoding >> issue >> might be nearing closure), my >> opening sentiment was genuine, i.e. I can see a real use for such a >> mechanism. The major drawback >> (apart from this whole thing being quite a major change compared with >> CIF1), >> is the further restriction on >> the use of + in non-delimited strings. My immediate thoughts are that this >> doesn't respect the spirit of >> compromise that led to the solution to the encoding issue, and would >> present >> a huge hurdle before even starting on >> accepting the possibility of such a mechanism. I light-heartedly threw in a >> single underscore as an alternative just >> because it was the first token that sprung to mind (i.e. a character in an >> isolated state that has no other meaning?), >> but I haven't investigated this further at this stage and might well be >> 'talking rubbish'. >> >> Anyway, I'd welcome some info on the use of comments in the bracketed >> constructs. >> >> Cheers >> >> Simon >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________________________ >> From: Herbert J. Bernstein <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> >> To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org> >> Sent: Thursday, 30 September, 2010 18:23:02 >> Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. . >> >> It reduces the incompatability with CIF1 introduced by the change >> in string quoting syntax, allowing the resulting CIF2 CIFS to >> be much closer to their CIF1 originals, fills that gap >> created by not dealing with elides for lone folding in >> a simpler way, and conforms to well-established pratice in >> multiple programming languages. C manages to deal with this >> using the blank as the concatenation operator at the C preprocessor >> level, so we should be able to handle it at the lexical level. >> >> ===================================================== >> 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, Bollinger, John C wrote: >> >> > >> > On Thursday, September 30, 2010 8:59 AM, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote: >> > >> >> The following issue came up during the encodings group discussion, but >> >> is more properly a DDLm issue. In order to simplify algorithmic >> >> conversion of existing CIF1 quoted strings to valid CIF2 strings, >> >> I propose the addition of the python string concatenation operator, "+", >> >> in CIF2 documents. The main value of this addition is to permit a >> >> simple algorithmic conversion of CIF1 strings with embedded quote >> >> marks to CIF2 strings that end on the first occurrence of the initial >> >> quote. While the use of text fields will suffice in many cases, >> >> for regular expressions it is clearer and simpler to just break the >> >> string, insert the terminal quote mark, insert a "+" and then restart >> >> the string with a different quote mark. >> >> >> >> Formally the proposal is: >> >> >> >> When a quoted string is given as a data value in a CIF2 document, >> >> it may be presented as multiple quoted strings concatenated by the >> >> "+" operator. [...] >> > >> > Would this issue be addressed well enough by converting single-quoted >> > strings to triple-quoted form? I guess that wouldn't allow for breaking >> > up regexes, so maybe it's addressed by the remark about text fields. >> > >> > I recognize that from time to time it is convenient to break up long, >> > single-line values, but I'm not yet persuaded that that is sufficient >> > justification for this feature. Adopting it would add an incremental >> > complication to CIF parsing, and would add another incompatibility with >> > CIF1, so the benefit should offset those costs. >> > >> > If breaking up regexes in particular is the motivation for this >> > suggestion, then could that objective adequately be met by having DDLm >> > use a regex language that allows non-significant whitespace, as Perl's >> > comments mode does? >> > >> > >> > 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 >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> 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:
- [ddlm-group] import and loops in ddlm (David Brown)
- Re: [ddlm-group] import and loops in ddlm (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] import and loops in ddlm (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] import and loops in ddlm (James Hester)
- [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. . (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. . (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- 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):