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

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

As I understand F or F', doubling of backslashes would only really be required
when a literal backslash is needed at the end of a line, because, as in python,
all unrecognized escape sequences are returned 'as is', e.g.
 ``\a\b\c\ \'\"`` will be returned as \a\b\c\ \'\" ?

Cheers

Simon


From: Brian McMahon <bm@iucr.org>
To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
Sent: Monday, 28 February, 2011 15:11:59
Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Fwd: Fwd: Searching for a compromise on eliding

I'm still working through my backlog of work and haven't time yet to
consider this in detail, but the converstaion has caught my attention:
this approach seems to offer us a solution with line-folding and the
ability to include arbitrary text. Is that right? If so, persistent
doubling of the backslash in cases such as TeX I would consider a
minor nuisance compared with the overall gain in functionality.

Regards
Brian

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 08:46:16AM -0500, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
> 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

_______________________________________________
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]