[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Simon's elide proposal
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Simon's elide proposal
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <[email protected]>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:38:34 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: FCB <[email protected]>
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]>
Please state the proposal F handling of the following strings,
both syntax and semantics, here presented in their python form
"""\""""
'''\''''
r"""\"'''
r'''\''''
"""\
\"\
"""
r"""\
\"\
"""
=====================================================
Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science
Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121
Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769
+1-631-244-3035
[email protected]
=====================================================
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, James Hester wrote:
> In triple-quoted strings there is no need to create \" or \' elides.
> It is sufficient to simply break up any embedded triple quotes. This
> is the insight behind proposals C and D and Simon's proposal. Simon's
> proposal is therefore complete. If you don't believe me, please
> present me with a string that you think is not handled by this
> proposal and I'll undertake to present you with the elided version.
>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Actually, Simon's proposal, while useful, is not complete,
>> inasmuch as \" and \' are not handled yet. �I urge adoption
>> of my compromise suggestion as written. � Without it,
>> we are going down the same slippery slope we crashed on
>> the last time we tried to resolve this issue. -- 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
>> � � � � � � � � [email protected]
>> =====================================================
>>
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, James Hester wrote:
>>
>>> Note that Simon's proposal *does* completely answer Ralf's concern
>>> about the lack of elide mechanism in triple quoted strings. �It
>>> provides line folding as well. �I for one would consider our job
>>> finished if we were to adopt Simon's proposal, and see no need for the
>>> further steps proposed by Herbert. �Herbert is of course welcome to
>>> propose including the various Python behaviours as a separate
>>> amendment to the CIF2 standard.
>>>
>>> I would propose a slight tweak to Simon's proposal, so that it works as
>>> follows:
>>>
>>> The datavalue is obtained from the triple-quoted string in two steps:
>>> (1) All instances of <backslash><eol> are removed from the string
>>> where the <backslash> is not preceded by another <backslash>
>>> (2) All other instances of <backslash><eol> are replaced with <eol>
>>>
>>> This means that a sequence of n backslashes followed by newline is
>>> replaced by a sequence of n-1 backslashes followed by newline, except
>>> if there is one backslash before the newline, in which case both
>>> newline and backslash are removed. �Triple quote sequences are elided
>>> by inserting a <backslash><eol> sequence between <delimiter>
>>> characters to break up the triple delimiter sequence. �Note also that
>>> backslash has no special meaning if not in a sequence finishing with
>>> <eol>.
>>>
>>> I will be posting a separate email, hopefully tonight, where I will
>>> list the current elide proposals and request that we all indicate
>>> which ones are potentially acceptable to us, with a ranking if
>>> possible. �This may help us to restrict discussion to something that
>>> is mutually acceptable.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Herbert J. Bernstein
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Here is a possible compromise. �This thread began with
>>>> Ralf's concern about the lack of an elide mechanism
>>>> in treble quoted strings. �Simon's suggestion does
>>>> not really answer that question, but it is a reasonable
>>>> step in that direction. �So, how about ...
>>>>
>>>> 1. �Immediately adopt Simon's suggestion to allow the
>>>> \\n and \\ elides in treble quoted strings. �Except for
>>>> the confusion in the meaning of \"""" if a more general
>>>> elide is eventually adopted that should cause very little
>>>> stress for anybody.
>>>>
>>>> 2. �Add Ralf's proosed new section 7 to the CIF2
>>>> document as a proposal under discussion, with the
>>>> advice that people may wish to avoid creating treble-quoted
>>>> string that conflict with the full python elide
>>>> conventions.
>>>>
>>>> 3. �Provide a coherent discussion document for COMCIFS
>>>> and the community at large on the alternatives in
>>>> handling the treble-quoted string, asking for comments
>>>> to the list prior to the Madrid meeting. �I would suggest
>>>> that Ralf be asked to contribute a page or 2 on the
>>>> merits of his proposal and that either John B. or James
>>>> contribute a page or 2 on their objections and alternatives.
>>>>
>>>> 4. �Discuss it face to face at the Msdrid meeting and
>>>> try to come to a resolution.
>>>>
>>>> 5. �Move forward with the rest of CIF2 as proposed in
>>>> the meantime so we will be ready to discuss all of CIF2
>>>> at the Madrid meeting, with a effort to have sample parsers
>>>> and data sets available on the web prior to the meeting.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> � � � � � � � � [email protected]
>>>> =====================================================
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 8 Jan 2011, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear James,
>>>>>
>>>>> �You are clearly a much better programmer than I am. When I got down
>>>>> into
>>>>> the interactions among the treble quote, single quotes, text fields,
>>>>> elides,
>>>>> the bracketed constructs and comments in the lexical scan, I found the
>>>>> going
>>>>> tough. �If you have it done neatly, I would greatly appreciate seeing
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> �I think we need a face to face meeting or Skype meeting to resolve not
>>>>> just this one issue, but the process of getting a workable CIF2.
>>>>> �Perhaps we
>>>>> can finally get to do that in Madrid.
>>>>>
>>>>> �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
>>>>> � � � � � � � �[email protected]
>>>>> =====================================================
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 8 Jan 2011, James Hester wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't let these assertions go unchallenged:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Simon,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> � Adoption of Ralf's proposal will ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> � 1. �Make it much easier to create a CIF2 parser, because for one of
>>>>>>> the messiest parts of the code we will have a clear specification,
>>>>>>> sample code and a way to validate the tough cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we adopt a simpler spec than the Python in toto spec:
>>>>>> - there will be many fewer tough cases
>>>>>> - there will be a simpler and therefore clearer specification
>>>>>> - for many alternative schemes the lexer will be unchanged from the
>>>>>> current version, with the elide behaviour
>>>>>> �simply requiring a search and replace following lexing
>>>>>> Triple-quoted string handling is not currently a messy part of the
>>>>>> code, I don't understand why you think this. �It will become
>>>>>> significantly more complex under Ralf's proposal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> � 2. �Make it easier for users to conform the the quoting rules,
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>> at least that one part of CIF2 will be thoroughly documented with lots
>>>>>>> of examples.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quoting rules are not rocket science. �About 3 examples will be
>>>>>> enough, if we adopt a simple specification rather
>>>>>> than the unicode+raw+lots of escapes that the Python proposal entails.
>>>>>> Doing things the Python way would
>>>>>> imply more chance for user misunderstanding, especially bearing in
>>>>>> mind that CIF2 users are not necessarily
>>>>>> Python programmers or even programmers at all. �For these users, there
>>>>>> is absolutely no benefit in adopting Python or any other language's
>>>>>> approach - they are unfamiliar with them all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> � 3. �Make is easier for the journals and archives to deal with "odd"
>>>>>>> CIF2 files containing complex treble quoted strings because at
>>>>>>> least �that one part of CIF2 will be throughly documented with lots
>>>>>>> of examples, and, with a utility (IDLE) all ready to allow them
>>>>>>> to pull out a troublesome treble-quoted string and figure out what
>>>>>>> it means or what it might mean if some intuitive change were made.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The simpler the spec, the less likely mistakes will be made and the
>>>>>> less chance of ambiguity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> � Yes, if Ralf's proposal happens to be rejected, we will still have
>>>>>>> a problem in the lack of elide handling, and yes we will have to
>>>>>>> put in the time an effort to consider those alternatives, but, first,
>>>>>>> in order to have some chance of finishing the specification of CIF2
>>>>>>> before the summer meeting deadlines (at least one of which is in
>>>>>>> just a little more than 3 weeks), might it not be a good idea
>>>>>>> to discuss and consider what was actually proposed instead of
>>>>>>> chasing after lots of plausible alternatives that we already discussed
>>>>>>> and rejected, and so are not very likely to agree upon rapidly now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have some hope that, by restricting our discussion to treble-quoted
>>>>>> strings, we can make progress compared to previous attempts. �I have
>>>>>> considered and discussed at length Ralf's proposal, and would be
>>>>>> interested in your responses to my particular objections.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> � So, before I will delve into the many subtle variations of elide
>>>>>>> mechanisms, I would appreciate our finishing consideration of Ralf's
>>>>>>> actual proposal:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> =======================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His revised wording (with one correction) is:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ========================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CHANGE 7 NEW
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Triple-quote delimited strings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The following ASCII sequences delimit the beginning of a string:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> � � """
>>>>>>> � � '''
>>>>>>> � � r"""
>>>>>>> � � r'''
>>>>>>> � � u"""
>>>>>>> � � u'''
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The characters following the delimiter sequence are interpreted
>>>>>>> with exactly the same algorithm as implemented for triple-quoted
>>>>>>> strings in the Python programming language version 2 series.
>>>>>>> In this algorithm, triple-quoted strings are terminated by matching
>>>>>>> """ or ''' delimiters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> � � """He said "His name is O'Hearly"."""
>>>>>>> � � r'''In {\bf \TeX} the accents are \' and \".'''
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Triple-quoted strings provide a reliable mechanism for storing any
>>>>>>> arbitrary string in a CIF2 file.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> =========================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is cleaner and simpler than the original change 7 wording.
>>>>>>> It probably does not conflict with existing CIF1 documents and the
>>>>>>> _only_ CIF2 documents it can conflict with are the very few
>>>>>>> that happen to end in \""" or \''''. �The new leading delimiters
>>>>>>> r""", r''', u""" and u''' will have to be added to the list of
>>>>>>> forbidden
>>>>>>> starts to white-space delimited data values in change 5. �In exchange
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> this minor adjustments to valid CIF2 syntax we gain a fully
>>>>>>> documented,
>>>>>>> software supported way to include arbitrary strings in a CIF2 document
>>>>>>> that people are already used to working with.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have reviewed the discussion of the "use of elides in strings"
>>>>>>> thread in the ddlm-group discussion list, and, while I did not
>>>>>>> then and do not now understand the objections to the general use
>>>>>>> of elides in quoted strings, I particularly do not understand
>>>>>>> the logic of objecting to the use of elides in treble-quoted strings,
>>>>>>> which are a construct completely new to CIF and therefore in
>>>>>>> conflict with no existing data files.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would those who have an objection to Ralf's proposal please
>>>>>>> state their objections. �An objection that says we object because
>>>>>>> in past discussions another body could not manage to come to an
>>>>>>> agreement and just gave up does not speak to the merits of this
>>>>>>> specific proposal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no idea why we are considering other proposals before
>>>>>>> settling the status of Ralf's proposal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is also useful to know what the alternatives might be when
>>>>>> considering a proposal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with Ralf's proposal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> � Herbert
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At 12:37 AM +0000 1/8/11, SIMON WESTRIP wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Herbert
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I fail to see how the adoption of python string quoting rules is
>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> make life easier for anyone other than a python programmer?
>>>>>>>> Even then, the mechanism is restricted to treble-quoted strings,
>>>>>>>> which are only
>>>>>>>> one part of CIF. Maybe I've missed something, but just because CIF
>>>>>>>> might share
>>>>>>>> common syntax with a programming language in one respect, does not
>>>>>>>> necessarily mean
>>>>>>>> that the tools of that medium are available to CIF?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you're looking to base CIF extensions on established mechanisms,
>>>>>>>> why not adopt
>>>>>>>> the minimal \(newline) and \\ escape sequences, which in essence are
>>>>>>>> the same as
>>>>>>>> the established CIF line-folding protocol (just dropping the initial
>>>>>>>> \ following the opening
>>>>>>>> delimiter and formalising the protocol as an inherent part of the
>>>>>>>> spec). Afterall, I beleive you
>>>>>>>> have already been using it, or at least interpreted it, as a means
>>>>>>>> to escape 'semicolon delimiters' within
>>>>>>>> semicolon-delimited values (I seem to recall discussions that
>>>>>>>> identified an issue with the published 'trip tests'
>>>>>>>> relating to line folding).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Forgive me if I have missed something regarding the usefulness of
>>>>>>>> python in CIF; please enlighten me
>>>>>>>> as to its benefits if I were to write a CIF reader using anything
>>>>>>>> but python. As far as I can see, the only
>>>>>>>> advantages lie in the fact that the logic is established and thus
>>>>>>>> unquestionable; but that does not mean it is
>>>>>>>> necessarily entirely appropriate for CIF (which afterall isn't a
>>>>>>>> programming language).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Herbert J. Bernstein <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 7 January, 2011 23:07:40
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Eliding in triple-quoted strings:
>>>>>>>> Proposals C and D. .. .. .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> � Ralf's proposal is what it is. �Before we go haring off in other
>>>>>>>> directions, we should respond constructively to what he has proposed.
>>>>>>>> I support it. �Ralf and John W. support it. �John B. and James H.
>>>>>>>> oppose it. �I think they are mistaken because ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> � It is well and good to adopt a "Real Programmers Don't Each
>>>>>>>> Quiche" let's-start-from-scratch-and-roll-our-own approach when
>>>>>>>> you have the resources to accomplish our goals that way. �It
>>>>>>>> is a lot of fun, and has the potential to truly advance the
>>>>>>>> field, but it is also, in the current funding climate, unrealistic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> � In the U.S., there is a serious prospect to science funding being
>>>>>>>> cut back so severely that the hit rates on grants next year may
>>>>>>>> be as low as 1 in 10. �I suspect an honest review of funding
>>>>>>>> prospects
>>>>>>>> in other countries will uncover similarly dire warnings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> � This does not mean we are all going out of buisness, but we do have
>>>>>>>> to be careful to conserve resources and focus our do-it-from-scratch
>>>>>>>> efforts on those areas that have the highest priority, and I fear,
>>>>>>>> for most of our community, CIF2, while important, is not likely to
>>>>>>>> be seen as worth that approach, and certainly filing the edges of
>>>>>>>> a brand-new treble quote spec is likely to be very far down
>>>>>>>> on anybody's priority list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ralf has made a proposal that will save all of us a lot of effort
>>>>>>>> and allow us to devote more resources to higher priority problems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not only is he right on this one point, but I urge us to look for
>>>>>>>> other areas where we can get to CIF2 by building on work that is
>>>>>>>> already done.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is not a good time for wheel-reinvention.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would appreciate knowing from those who wish to reinvent this
>>>>>>>> particular wheel, why they wish to do that and from where they
>>>>>>>> expect to get the resources to do 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
>>>>>>>> � � � � � � � � � <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>>>>>>>> =====================================================
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 7 Jan 2011, Bollinger, John C wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> �On Friday, January 07, 2011 3:14 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> �We seem not to be communicating effectively.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> �>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> �What I am asking for is an _existing_, supported treble quote
>>>>>>>>>> specification
>>>>>>>>>> �from an _existing_ language with _existing_ documentation and
>>>>>>>>>> �_existing_ software as an alternative to the Python specification,
>>>>>>>>>> �documentation and software to which we all have access, that is
>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>> �proposed as an alternative
>>>>>>>>>> �to what Ralf has proposed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> �Thank you for that clarification. �You are right, I didn't
>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>> �what you were asking for.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> �I hope this will likewise clarify my position: I reject the premise
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> �the system we choose must meet those criteria, and I oppose
>>>>>>>>> adopting
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> �full Python syntax and semantics.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> �The Python specification is available at
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <http://docs.python.org/reference/index.html>http://docs.python.org/reference/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> �with the lexical analysis at
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <http://docs.python.org/reference/lexical_analysis.html>http://docs.python.org/reference/lexical_analysis.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> �Thanks, though that is exactly what I was looking at already. �It
>>>>>>>>> leaves
>>>>>>>>> �several details unclear, some of which I discussed in previous
>>>>>>>>> messages.
>>>>>>>>> �Hence, I consider it slightly short of a *full* specification. �It
>>>>>>>>> does,
>>>>>>>>> �however, provide my grounds for opposing adoption of that scheme
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> �CIF.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> �The complete source code and binaries are available at:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> �Unless you propose to append a particular set of Python sources to
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> �CIF specification as a reference, I have no interest in perusing
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> �source code to seek answers to such questions of detail as I have.
>>>>>>>>> �Furthermore, I would oppose adding such an appendix on the grounds
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> �it would be exceedingly difficult to use to resolve questions such
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> �mine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> �I am likewise unwilling to rely on the behavior the python binary
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> �happens to be installed on my computer to answer them. �If the
>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>> �behavior is not documented independent of the program then there is
>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>> �particular reason to trust that it won't change in future versions,
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> �that any particular implementation is correct or bug-free.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> �Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> �John
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> �--
>>>>>>>>> �John C. Bollinger, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>>> �Department of Structural Biology
>>>>>>>>> �St. Jude Children's Research Hospital
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> �Email Disclaimer:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer>www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> �_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> �ddlm-group mailing list
>>>>>>>>> �<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group>http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> ddlm-group mailing list
>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group>http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> ddlm-group mailing list
>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> � � � � � � � � �[email protected]
>>>>>>> =====================================================
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> ddlm-group mailing list
>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> T +61 (02) 9717 9907
>>>>>> F +61 (02) 9717 3145
>>>>>> M +61 (04) 0249 4148
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> ddlm-group mailing list
>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ddlm-group mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> T +61 (02) 9717 9907
>>> F +61 (02) 9717 3145
>>> M +61 (04) 0249 4148
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ddlm-group mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ddlm-group mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> T +61 (02) 9717 9907
> F +61 (02) 9717 3145
> M +61 (04) 0249 4148
> _______________________________________________
> ddlm-group mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
>
_______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list [email protected] http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ddlm-group] Simon's elide proposal (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Simon's elide proposal (Bollinger, John C)
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Simon's elide proposal (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Simon's elide proposal (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Simon's elide proposal (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Focusing the elide discussion
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Focusing the elide discussion. .
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Simon's elide proposal
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Simon's elide proposal
- Index(es):

