[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ddlm-group] Focusing the elide discussion. .

On Wednesday, January 12, 2011 7:20 AM, 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 \

Best: E, F, F'
Good: A, B
Last resort: C, D
Unacceptable: P

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

Reply to: [list | sender only]