[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF?. .. .. .
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF?. .. .. .
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:28:38 -0400
- In-Reply-To: <1309350269.36301.YahooMailRC@web87012.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
- References: <BANLkTi=KKXU7HCc7r2Xji0ssaJg+xkw9Jw@mail.gmail.com><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54299C88A2EA@11.stjude.org><alpine.BSF.2.00.1106281001210.95500@epsilon.pair.com><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54299C88A2EC@11.stjude.org><alpine.BSF.2.00.1106281436390.6872@epsilon.pair.com><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54299C88A2EF@11.stjude.org><alpine.BSF.2.00.1106281808410.45881@epsilon.pair.com><a06240800ca30b5e30b2a@[192.168.2.101]><1309350269.36301.YahooMailRC@web87012.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
I seem to have missed seeing the positive feedback on 'simplification' of the quoting rules. Could you point me at the messages? At 1:24 PM +0100 6/29/11, SIMON WESTRIP wrote: >Hmmm ... and there was I thinking that we may still some sort of >backslash-based >elide system for the quoted strings... > >Of the CIF changes, I seem to recall that the 'simplification' of >the quoting rules actually received >positive feedback when the changes document was made more widely available, so >I would be surprised and reluctant to see a reversal at this stage. > >Cheers > >Simon > > > >From: Herbert J. Bernstein <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> >To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org> >Sent: Wednesday, 29 June, 2011 12:22:39 >Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to >incorporate into CIF?. .. .. . > >Dear Colleagues, > >Having slept on this, I have a proposal -- that we return string >handling as completely as possible to CIF1 conventions in supporting DDLm. > > Please recall the following from the original proposal on this >form of elide: > >"5. If the prefixed text fields are implemented, arbitrary values can > >be represented in CIFs at least as conveniently as can text fields in the >current CIF1.1 format. Thus, there is strictly speaking no need for the >"""/''' strings, and one could simplify CIF2.x by omitting them > >altogether. However, the proposed method is orthogonal to the """/''' >string format, and thus both can be implemented simultaneously if >necessary." > >in other words, part of the proposal was to drop the treble quotes >entirely, i.e. to return at least in part to CIF1 string handling. > >I suggest we complete the process and restore the CIF1 parse for all >quoted strings, i.e., that we _not_ terminate a quoted string scan for >the terminal quote on the first occurrence of the terminal quote, >but only on the first occurrence of the terminal quote followed by >white space. The only place in DDLm where this causes a problem is >within bracketed constructs in the handling of the terminal bracket, >the comma or the colon immediately after a terminal quote mark or >in dealing with an unquoted string. I propose that within the >bracketed constructs _only_ we terminate the scan for a closing quote >delimiter on the combination of the quote delimiter followed by any of: > > whitespace > comma > the closing bracket > colon > >This will preserve almost all existing CIFS (e.g. the ones with 'O''') >as valid, unchanged, and limit our parser changes for CIF2 primarily >to the handling of the new bracketed constructs and of this new elide >convention. There is some small risk of invalidating existing CIFS >in adopting the new elide convention at the parser level rather than >at the semantic convention level, but, after sleeping on it, I agree >that that risk is minimal. > >Regards, > Herbert > > > >At 6:17 PM -0400 6/28/11, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote: >>Dear John, >> >> There is nothing terribly wrong with any one aspect of the >>CIF2 document. My problem is that for me it does not hang >>together as a coherent whole espcially on the issue of >>string representation. Right now to me it is an uncomfortable >>mixture of CIF1 and Python string handling, and, as I have >>repeatedly stated, I would prefer to change to being entirely >>consistent with Python. If that is not to be, I would prefer >>to go back to CIF1 string handling. That is and has been my >>position for a very long time. >> >> If something I have said in the past discussions is not clear, >>I will be happy to amplify, but right now I don't know what >>I can say that would not have me repeating myself. >> >> 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 >> <mailto:yaya@dowling.edu>yaya@dowling.edu >>===================================================== >> >>On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Bollinger, John C wrote: >> >>> Dear Herbert, >>> >>> On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 1:46 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote: >>> >>>> I fear we are not comunicating very effectively. >>> >>> >>> Evidently not. >>> >>> >>>> I am >>>> _not_ comfortable with the current state of the CIF2 >>>> document, and I do not find the current emendation to >>>> be an improvement. >>> >>> >>> Your opinions about the document and the proposed change are entirely at >>> your discretion, of course, but it does come as a surprise to me that >>> you think the entire changes document unsatisfactory. If there are >>> issues with it that you have not previously brought before the group >> > then I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to hear and perhaps >>> comment on them before Madrid. Even those who will actually be present >>> in Madrid might appreciate the opportunity to consider those issues >>> ahead of time. >>> >>> As far as I am aware, the only point of CIF 2.0 syntax remaining open >>> for discussion is the (in-)ability of CIF 2.0 to represent arbitrary >>> strings. Inasmuch as both this working group and COMCIFS already >>> approved the changes document, I would be very reluctant to reopen it >>> for general changes. Nevertheless, if you have discovered serious flaws >>> in it then better to fix them sooner than later. Otherwise, it is >>> unproductive to criticize proposals for being based on the only document >>> available to base them on. >>> >>> >>>> Much as I would dearly love to have >>>> the current line-folding protocol in CIF2, I think it >>>> is much more important to work on making CIF2 into >>>> something clear and coherent. I for one find the >>>> either-or approach to prefixes and line-folding unnecessary >>>> and confusing. >>> >>> >>> Line folding and prefixes are compatible. Saulius pointed this out in >>> his initial description of the protocol, as a group we commented on it >>> in our subsequent discussion, and my formal proposal from earlier today >>> specifically and explicitly provides for them to work together. I'm not >>> sure how you acquired an impression to the contrary, but if it was from >>> my text then please explain so that I can improve it. >>> >>> >>>> When working with old fortran compilers, >>>> I _need_ the line folding protocol. If the prefixes >>>> are bing introduced, I need a way to deal with both the >>>> prefixes _and_ the line-folding protocol, not have it >>>> be either-or. I understand that mose people don't >>>> see a problem, but I work with software both on new computers >>>> and very, very old computers (e.g. I just brought an Indigo >>>> back to life). >>> >>> >>> I don't see a problem specific to line-folding and prefixes. Not even >>> for very old compilers. I do appreciate that some old compilers present >>> issues for text processing in general, and that these manifest in the >>> context of CIF. I think most of us do, else CIF 2.0 would be different. >>> >>> >>>> I repeat my suggestion that we need to meet and talk things >>>> out. Maybe then I will understand what the rest of you are trying >>>> to do, and maybe I will be able to explain what I am trying >>>> to do. >>> >>> >>> It was my understanding that there would indeed be opportunities for >>> those who attend Madrid to meet, and I hope that at least one such >>> meeting happens. It will bear more fruit the better its participants >>> can prepare for it, however. If I were going to be present, then I >>> would want to have as specific an idea as possible of the topics to be >>> covered. Bringing those up here, in advance, would have the added >>> advantage of including, at least to some extent, group members who >>> otherwise would be shut out. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> John >>> >>> -- >>> John C. Bollinger, Ph.D. >>> Department of Structural Biology >>> St. Jude Children's Research Hospital > >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Email Disclaimer: >>><http://www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer>www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ddlm-group mailing list >>> <mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>ddlm-group@iucr.org >>> >>><http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group>http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>ddlm-group mailing list >><mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>ddlm-group@iucr.org >><http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group>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 > <mailto:yaya@dowling.edu>yaya@dowling.edu >===================================================== >_______________________________________________ >ddlm-group mailing list ><mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>ddlm-group@iucr.org ><http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group>http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group > > >_______________________________________________ >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
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporate intoCIF? (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF?. . (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF?. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF?. .. . (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF?. .. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF?. .. .. . (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF?. .. .. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF?. .. .. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF?. .. .. . (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF?. .. .. .
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF?. .. .. .
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF?. .. .. .
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF?. .. .. .
- Index(es):