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

Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF?. .. .

For CIF2, I am very uncomfortable with the current state of string handling
and do not believe that this proposal is an improvement over simple
adoption of the python string parse.  I vote no.

At 9:15 AM -0500 6/28/11, Bollinger, John C wrote:
>On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 9:07 AM, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
>>    I do not believe it is appropriate to add major changes in
>>parsing to CIF1 at this time, so whatever happens with the
>>prefix proposal, I would urge that both the line folding
>>protocol and the prefix protocol be (optional) semantic
>>features for CIF1 files.
>My understanding was that we were considering the Grazulis proposal 
>only for CIF 2.  Lest there be any ambiguity, I clarify that I am in 
>favor of adding it only to CIF 2, not to CIF 1.1.  My earlier 
>comments about CIF 1.1 data types were aimed at the question of 
>backwards compatibility, not at actually incorporating Grazulis into 
>CIF 1.1.
>Email Disclaimer:  www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer
>ddlm-group mailing list

  Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science
    Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121
         Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769

ddlm-group mailing list

Reply to: [list | sender only]