[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P. .
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P. .
- From: James Hester <[email protected]>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:43:00 +1100
- In-Reply-To: <8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54168ECD35AE@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local>
- References: <[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54168ECD35AE@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local>
Hi John, I agree with your analysis of my position and that of the others. If this is not a "technical" issue, but one more "complexity" issue, then so be it. The onus is entirely on the programmer and user of the syntax to anticipate strange corner cases, and work around them. I see no reason why we should create this extra issue with Proposal P when much simpler proposals are available. James. On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Bollinger, John C <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 4:55 PM, James Hester wrote: > >>I am trying to focus relentlessly on a particular and very real >>technical issue. �I repeat that I am not concerned about the >>transformation from surface syntax to a sequence of characters. �I >>accept that that is well-defined and unambiguous for all proposals on >>the table. �If you think that IDLE can resolve this problem, you >>haven't understood my question. >> >>My question relates to the next step: how does the CIF application >>downstream from the parser interpret this sequence of characters? >>Under all previous incarnations of CIF, it was safe to assume that no >>artefacts of syntactical representation were left in the string, so >>the string had purely domain-specific meaning. �However, with the >>introduction of raw strings, <backslash><delimiter> will escape the >>delimiter, but the <backslash> is required to remain in the string. > > I'm good this far. > >>So the downstream application must decide between artefacts of the >>syntactical representation (<backslash><delimiter>) that have remained >>in raw strings, and domain-specific character sequences >>(<backslash><delimiter>). > > And this is where the disconnect occurs. �I hold, and I interpret Herbert and Simon also to hold, that it is incorrect to characterize the backslash in the parsed data value as an artifact: it is rather an intended member of the string's character data. �Backslashes in Python raw strings serve simultaneously as elides and character data. �If an lexical-level eliding backslash is not intended to be part of an application-level data value, then raw string syntax is not suitable for expressing that value. > > This is an odd and I think confusing feature that I am not eager to add to CIF, but I don't think it creates any technical ambiguity. > >> �Here those examples are again (remember >>this is the character sequence after syntactic processing): >> >> <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> >> >>Assume the domain-specific meaning of <backslash><quote> when found in >>a datavalue is to accent the letter preceding the <backslash>. >> >>Does the first string finish with a double quote, or with an accented e? > > The domain-specific meaning is that it ends with an accented e. > >>Does the second string contain an accented o, followed by two double >>quotes, or a letter o followed by three quotes? > > The domain-specific meaning is that it contains an accented o, followed by two quotes. > > > 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 > [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
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P. . (Bollinger, John C)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P. .
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Technical issues with Proposal P. .
- Index(es):