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

Re: [ddlm-group] Fwd: Fwd: Searching for a compromise on eliding

Dear James,

   Let us call G with the Python behavior on \\ GP, then my preference
voting woud be

   P > P-prime > F = GP

and all are tolerable.  I prefer P to P-prime for completeness, esp
in dealing with unicode.  I prefer P-prime to F or GP for completeness,
but find F and GP tolerable because they are at least reasonably
consistent with P and P-prime, esp. in folding lines that contain
various patterns of backslashes.

The completeness issue, is I suspect, related to Brian's
maximially disuptive concern.  I believe we are eventually
going to have to do what many popular languages that use
backslahes have ended up doing on this issue, so to me, it
seems best to adopt what one of them has done and not have to
revisit the issue in the near future.

I am very incomfortable with the proposals with syntax that
conflicts with the Python syntax for the reasons given in
the prior message.

Thank you for listening.

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, 1 Mar 2011, James Hester wrote:

> If proposal G were to work as you describe instead of how I describe,
> how would you rank it relative to P-prime, and why?
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein
> <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> wrote:
>> Dear James,
>>
>>  Thank you.  I trust you appeciate that for somebody used
>> to the C and Python-style handling of the reverse solidus,
>> such as myself, the difference beteen this rule and the C/Pythn rules,
>> which would have converted n backslahes into n/2 backslahes
>> for even n and (n-1)/2 backslahes plus a backslash, this
>> is disconcerting and confusing.  When I look at
>>
>> ``line 1 \\\
>> line 2``
>>
>> and
>>
>> ``line 1 \\\\\
>> line 2``
>>
>> I see
>>
>> <start>line 1 \line 2<finish>
>>
>> and
>>
>> <start>line 1 \\line 2><finish>
>>
>> The question is thus not one of which approach (G or P-prime)
>> is more confusing, but one of which one is more confusing
>> for whom?
>>
>> 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 Mon, 28 Feb 2011, James Hester wrote:
>>
>>> Proposal G is derived from F', which has the simple rule that n
>>> backslashes before <eol> is replaced by n-1 backslashes and <eol>
>>> unless there is only 1 backslash, in which case both backslash and
>>> <eol> are removed.  So the internal representations of these three
>>> strings are:
>>>
>>> <start>line 1 line 2<finish>
>>>
>>> <start>line 1 \
>>> line 2<finish>
>>>
>>> <start>line 1 \\
>>> line 2<finish>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein
>>> <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> To avoid any misunderstandings, please clarify the meaning of
>>>>
>>>> ``line 1 \
>>>> line 2``
>>>>
>>>> ``line 1 \\
>>>> line 2``
>>>>
>>>> ``line 1 \\\
>>>> line 2``
>>>>
>>>> under proposal G
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At 8:41 AM +1100 2/28/11, James Hester wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear DDLm-ers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Note the forwarded message from Ralf below - he is suggesting Proposal
>>>>> G with double backquote (grave accent) as a delimiter.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve <rwgk@cci.lbl.gov>
>>>>> Date: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 3:51 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: Searching for a compromise on eliding
>>>>> To: jamesrhester@gmail.com
>>>>> Cc: rwgk@cci.lbl.gov
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi James,
>>>>>
>>>>> P' looks good to me, G better. How about
>>>>>
>>>>> ``Hello world``
>>>>>
>>>>> ``\as \many \backslash \as \you \like \but \watch \
>>>>> \out \at \end \of \line``
>>>>>
>>>>> ``embedded `\
>>>>> ` are not a problem, too``
>>>>>
>>>>> Ralf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> =====================================================
>>>>  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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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]