[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Revisiting list delimiters. .
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Revisiting list delimiters. .
- From: "Bollinger, John C" <[email protected]>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 08:25:23 -0500
- Accept-Language: en-US
- acceptlanguage: en-US
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]>
On Thursday, April 07, 2011 2:34 AM, James Hester wrote:
>I apologise for the lack of detail in my introductory posting. If
>there is to be no quick agreement on the following, more formal,
>proposal, then I am happy to withdraw the proposal completely and we
>will continue on our previously agreed path.
>
>Note that I see no value in picking over Nick et. al's code as that
>code is not the final arbiter of every detail of what is or isn't in
>the standard - I was simply pointing out that it would be less work to
>fix the code to conform to the new standard if we don't deviate too
>far from the original.
>
>Here is my formal proposal: that a list be described by the following
>productions:
>
><list> = '[' <whitespace>* {<listdatavalue> {<comma or
>whitespace><listdatavalue>}*}* ']'
><listdatavalue> = {<list>|<string>}<whitespace>*
I still maintain that the situation is essentially unchanged from the last time this matter was discussed. In particular, unless I greatly underestimate the relative difficulties of the software modifications that would be needed, the significance of any one-time cost difference for those changes is miniscule relative to that of the ongoing (but less tangible) costs of adopting an otherwise inferior solution.
I acknowledge that commas, whitespace, and combinations of those as token separators all have merits, but from the perspective of CIF overall, I firmly believe that whitespace as the only list token separators remains the best solution. I withhold further technical commentary at this time, in the hope that it will be unnecessary.
Regards,
John
Email Disclaimer: www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer
_______________________________________________
ddlm-group mailing list
[email protected]
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ddlm-group] Revisiting list delimiters. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Revisiting list delimiters (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Revisiting list delimiters (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Revisiting list delimiters (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Revisiting list delimiters
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Revisiting list delimiters. .
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Revisiting list delimiters
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Revisiting list delimiters. .
- Index(es):

