Discussion List Archives

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

Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P

I am a little confused:

So what is r"""C\"""" ?

Is it C\" or is it C" ?

Python says it should be C\", so CIF2 should say its C\" if CIF2 is adopting Python?

Or are you suggesting that we should adopt a fuzzy interpretation of Python?

Cheers

Simon


From: Herbert J. Bernstein <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 February, 2011 12:01:23
Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P

Dear Colleagues,

  Working under the assumption of Ralf's proposal, rather
than Simon's, we have several very distinct string presentaions
to consider:  a (non-raw) treble quoted string, a raw treble
quoted string a unicode treble quoted string and a raw unicode
treble quoted string.  As for Python 3, under CIF2, because
the "native" character encoding is UTF-8, under reasonable coding
constraints, this collapses to just two cases the application
needs to deal with:  non-raw (i.e. cooked) versus raw.  The intent of
the cooked is for the lexer to process the elides, so the response
I gave is, I believe correct -- just push the string through IDLE.
The intent of the raw is precisely to push through the string
with the backslahes still in place, e.g. for TeX text in which
you don't want to double-up your backslashes.  While I personally
would recommend against such a use of raw, it is not ambiguous.
It gives the application a very well-defined string of characters
to deal with.  Yes, there are applications that are intended to
deal with CIF with the encoding exposed (e.g. cif2cbf, cif2cif, etc.)
bit, I agree that the cleanest design is for an application to
only make use of the string content, not the representation.

  Thus, for most applications, I would recommend that they treat

  """\\\"""" and r"""\""""

as equivalent, but for applications that are, for example,
intended to do faithful copies of the representations that
they treat them as different.

  We have had, and will continue to have this subtle problem
with all versions of CIF in the handling of things such as
magic number, comments, white space, line folding, and choices
of quoting characters.  I don't see how the introduction of
the Python treble quote makes the situation any worse or
any more or less ambiguous.

  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
                  yaya@dowling.edu
=====================================================

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, James Hester wrote:

> I will focus this email on the technical issues and try to return to
> the other issues at a later date (I've changed the subject
> accordingly)
>
> [edit]
>
> My apologies for not being clear: my examples of embedded elides
> already give the internal representation of the strings, deliberately
> leaving out the particular delimiters that might have been used to
> produce those strings.  Herbert mistakenly thought I was giving
> triple-double-quote delimited strings and asking what the internal
> representation was. So, unfortunately, IDLE cannot help here, as the
> internal representation is not in question.
>
> My question therefore remains: how does the CIF application interpret
> these strings? Is the <backslash><delimiter> in my examples simply an
> elide that could not be removed from a raw string and therefore should
> be ignored, or is it a character sequence intended for the application
> (eg a LaTeX accent on the o or e)?
>
> In your answer you may assume that the CIF application knows that the
> string was a raw string delimited by triple double quotes (even though
> requiring communication of such information would be a very
> unfortunate loss of clean design).
>
> Those strings again:
>
> <start> I have no idea what the last characters of this string are\"<finish>
> <start> Does this string have two\""" or three internal quotes?<finish>
>
>
> Herbert writes:
>>   Now for your two examples of embedded elides of quotes:
>>
>> <start> I have no idea what the last characters of this string are\"<finish>
>>
>> is, internally, as a C-string
>>
>> I have no idea what the last characters of this string are"\0
>>
>> <start> Does this string have two\""" or three internal quotes?<finish>
>>
>> is, internally as a C-string
>>
>> Does this string have two""" or three internal quotes?\0
>>
>> I settled that by simply cranking up IDLE and doing:
>>
>>>>>  print """I have no idea what the last characters of this string
>>>>> are\"""" I have no idea what the last characters of this string
>>>>> are" >>> print """Does this string have two\""" or three internal
>>>>> quotes?""" Does this string have two""" or three internal quotes?
>>
>> As you well know, having IDLE around is a big help.
>>
>>   Thank you again for taking the time to clarify your position
>> on Ralf's proposal.  I think I now understand why you prefer Simon's
>> proposal.
>>
>>   Regards,
>>     Herbert
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>> One technical issue with Proposal P that has not been resolved is how
>>> a CIF application is supposed to interpret the sequence
>>> <backslash><double quote> when encountered in a string returned from
>>> the parser.  Is this sequence:
>>> (a) a terminator elide sequence that was left in a raw string, so
>>> corresponds to <double quote>?
>>> (b) something with meaning for the application so should be
>>> <backslash><double quote>?
>>>
>>> Please therefore advise how a CIF application will disambiguate the
>>> following string content from a Proposal P parser:
>>>
>>> <start> I have no idea what the last characters of this string are\"<finish>
>>> <start> Does this string have two\""" or three internal quotes?<finish>
>>>
>>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
ddlm-group mailing list
ddlm-group@iucr.org
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group

Reply to: [list | sender only]
International Union of Crystallography

Scientific Union Member of the International Council for Science (admitted 1947). Member of CODATA, the ICSU Committee on Data. Member of ICSTI, the International Council for Scientific and Technical Information. Partner with UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in the International Year of Crystallography 2014.

ICSU Scientific Freedom Policy

The IUCr observes the basic policy of non-discrimination and affirms the right and freedom of scientists to associate in international scientific activity without regard to such factors as ethnic origin, religion, citizenship, language, political stance, gender, sex or age, in accordance with the Statutes of the International Council for Science.