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

Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on moving elide discussion to COMCIFS. .. .

Dear John B.,

   Thank you, that was very helpful.  To summarize those messages,
a majority on COMCIFS made a proposal to make the treble-quoted
strings agree with those of Python.  The reasons given were:

"such informal
descriptions are never as reliable as an actual implementation,
in particular one that's been around for many years and is used
by millions of people."  (Ralf)

  "meaningful adoption of DDLm/CIF2 will require embracing
and leveraging existing technologies as much as possible." (John W.)

"I find it [counter-intuitive] and unproductive to adopt something
that looks very much like the python treble quoted
string but which follows confusingly different rules." (HJB)

The responses you cite did not seem to address those issues.  Was
there a discussion on those issues that I missed?

Regards,
    Herbert




At 3:32 PM -0600 2/21/11, Bollinger, John C wrote:
>Dear Herbert,
>
>On Monday, February 21, 2011 2:35 PM, you wrote:
>>    Other than my own messages, could you point me to where there
>>was a discussion of the actual proposal Ralf made, rather than
>>of variations and interpretations, but of the actual wording
>>change Ralf proposed for the CIF2 document?  I cannot seem
>>to find that.  That wording seemed/seems pretty sensible to
>>me.
>
>For reference, the message to the COMCIFS list in which Ralf 
>proposed his wording change is archived here: 
>http://www.iucr.org/__data/iucr/lists/comcifs-l/msg00500.html
>
>Some messages on the DDLm list, other than your own, in which Ralf's 
>proposal is directly discussed include these:
>
>http://www.iucr.org/__data/iucr/lists/ddlm-group/msg00899.html
>http://www.iucr.org/__data/iucr/lists/ddlm-group/msg00901.html
>http://www.iucr.org/__data/iucr/lists/ddlm-group/msg00904.html
>http://www.iucr.org/__data/iucr/lists/ddlm-group/msg00906.html
>http://www.iucr.org/__data/iucr/lists/ddlm-group/msg00921.html
>
>Some of those also discuss alternatives, but all of them discuss 
>Ralf's proposal, a.k.a. proposal P.  I probably missed some, and of 
>course your own comments in favor of proposal P are not represented.
>
>Moreover, it distorts the (meta-)discussion to ignore commentary 
>about alternative proposals.  The existence and characteristics of 
>alternatives to Ralf's proposal are relevant to any decision about 
>it.  That the discussion shifted to focusing on alternatives is 
>natural given that most participants in the discussion disfavored 
>proposal P.
>
>I hope this helps.
>
>
>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


-- 
=====================================================
  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
=====================================================
_______________________________________________
ddlm-group mailing list
ddlm-group@iucr.org
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group

Reply to: [list | sender only]