[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Focusing the elide discussion
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Focusing the elide discussion
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:32:53 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinUHwGQOYo6dafhKSb0Pv9gKbNMZhZ27bvb_Ha8@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <AANLkTinUHwGQOYo6dafhKSb0Pv9gKbNMZhZ27bvb_Ha8@mail.gmail.com>
Long term, I find anything other than proposal P unacceptable. In the short term, I find Simon's proposal F acceptable as a step in the right direction, under the terms stated in my compromise proposal. I find all the other proposals unacceptable, not because they are inherently defective, but because they will lead to the creation of data sets that will be difficult to handle in the transition to full python compatibility I firmly believe we will eventually have to move to. -- 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, 13 Jan 2011, James Hester wrote: > By my count there are 6 distinct proposals for eliding triple-quoted > strings on the table, which I have listed below. In order to get an > idea of where we all stand and which proposals are most likely to > succeed, I'd like to invite you all to reply to this email with a list > of proposals which you would find acceptable. If you like, you can > rank them in order of preference. In the list below I've given short > descriptions, but you should refer to the original emails for the full > details. The opinions of COMCIFS voting members are of course most > significant at this juncture, but I for one am interested in the > thoughts of the other members as well. > > Proposal P (for Python): Ralf's original proposal to do everything as in Python > Proposal A: <backslash><delimiter> elides the delimiter, no other > sequences are significant > Proposal B: \uxxxx to represent Unicode characters, no other sequences > are significant > Proposal C: as yet unspecified character post-elides the delimiter > where necessary > Proposal D: as for C, except post-elide character is given immediately > before opening triple delimiter > Proposal E: (John B's suggestion) \uxxxx for Unicode character > together with \<newline> and \\ > Proposal F: (Simon's proposal) \<newline> and \\ only > Proposal F': (My slight tweak of Simon's proposal) \<newline> only > when not preceded by \ > > I find proposal P unacceptable, and would rank the others in order of > preference roughly as follows: > > Best: F', F, C > Bearable: A, B, E > In a pinch: D > > -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list ddlm-group@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Focusing the elide discussion (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: [ddlm-group] Focusing the elide discussion
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Simon's elide proposal
- Prev by thread: [ddlm-group] Focusing the elide discussion
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Focusing the elide discussion. .
- Index(es):