[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
[ddlm-group] Wrapping up the elide discussion
- To: ddlm-group <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: [ddlm-group] Wrapping up the elide discussion
- From: James Hester <jamesrhester@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 23:40:58 +1100
Dear DDLm-ers, This latest round of discussion started as an attempt to find consensus on an elide system for CIF2 triple-quoted strings. I have asked everybody to contribute their preferences, and now that John W and Ralf have replied to me off-list regarding their preferences for elides, we are in a position to read the tea-leaves and determine a consensus solution. I can report that Ralf, while preferring the full Python approach (proposal P) will accept a solution that allows arbitrary strings to be included in a CIF file. John W prefers a solution involving minimal changes to current syntax. So our top preferences are as follows: Herbert: P, otherwise F with conditions Brian: F' and E, P least preferable James: F' and F, P unacceptable Ralf: P best, A,B,E,F,F' OK John W: A, B or F' (my interpretation of minimal changes - John feel free to say otherwise) It appears that all but Herbert would be prepared to vote for F', and even Herbert is prepared to consider F. No other proposal reaches a similar level of acceptance among voting members (and I note that non-voting members are also strongly in the F/F' camp). I would therefore like to focus discussion on F' and F as the two choices most likely to succeed. The single point in favour of F' as opposed to F is that the sequence <backslash><backslash> has no meaning, which makes it simpler to include backslash-rich text (eg LaTeX or RTF). This continues to be of particular concern among our journal colleagues. The single point that some consider to be in favour of F relative to F' is that it is a proper subset of Python syntax. If no consensus can be achieved following a small period for comment within this group, I propose voting between F or F', followed by a formal vote at COMCIFS level to accept the resulting elide system as an amendment to the current CIF2 standard. James. -- 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
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ddlm-group] Wrapping up the elide discussion. . (Bollinger, John C)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. .. .. .. .. .
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Wrapping up the elide discussion
- Prev by thread: [ddlm-group] Draft of proposed change to syntax document
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Wrapping up the elide discussion. .
- Index(es):