[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
From: "Bollinger, John C" <John.Bollinger@STJUDE.ORG>
To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
Sent: Thursday, 30 September, 2010 20:52:05
Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. .. .
On Thursday, September 30, 2010 2:37 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
> 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
On Thursday, September 30, 2010 2:42 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote;
>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.
Unfortunately, the current draft of the Changes document contains a definition of "whitespace" that does not include comments. I'm not sure how that came about or whether it has some purpose I do not see, but I find it a bit strange. I think it would at times be useful to have comments in bracketed structures, and my existing code will allow it (in part because I didn't recognize until now that there was a question about it).
Is there a reason why we should not reintroduce comments to the definition of whitespace?
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
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: SIMON WESTRIP <simonwestrip@btinternet.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
- In-Reply-To: <8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA5416659DEDF7@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local>
- 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><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA5416659DEDF7@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local>
If nothing else, I think we've stumbled upon an issue that is not clear in the proposed spec.
Hopefully, it'll be swiflty addressed.
Cheers
Simon
Hopefully, it'll be swiflty addressed.
Cheers
Simon
From: "Bollinger, John C" <John.Bollinger@STJUDE.ORG>
To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
Sent: Thursday, 30 September, 2010 20:52:05
Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. .. .
On Thursday, September 30, 2010 2:37 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
> 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
On Thursday, September 30, 2010 2:42 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote;
>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.
Unfortunately, the current draft of the Changes document contains a definition of "whitespace" that does not include comments. I'm not sure how that came about or whether it has some purpose I do not see, but I find it a bit strange. I think it would at times be useful to have comments in bracketed structures, and my existing code will allow it (in part because I didn't recognize until now that there was a question about it).
Is there a reason why we should not reintroduce comments to the definition of whitespace?
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
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)
- Re: [ddlm-group] A modest addition to the DDLm spec. .. . (Bollinger, John C)
- 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):