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

Re: [ddlm-group] Simplifying string handling in CIF2

I disagree.  We are already committed to continuing to support both
CIF1 and CIF2 data sets in the future, so there is every reason to
deal with both CIF 1.1 string syntax issues _and_ CIF 2 syntax issues
in our discussions.

In any case -- to avoid any misunderstanding and have us all working 
from the same base please send whatever proposal we are discussing as 
one self-contained document

   -- Herbert



At 12:38 PM +1000 7/26/11, James Hester wrote:
>Dear DDLm group,
>
>This email is in response to Herbert's suggestion of reverting 
>wholesale to CIF1.1 string handling conventions, and including the 
>Grazulis elide proposal to cover the strings that would be otherwise 
>impossible to represent.
>
>As I see it, we are faced with four alternatives:
>(1) Revert completely to CIF1.1 string handling and add the Grazulis protocol;
>  - this means no triple-quoted strings, but we could reserve the 
>prefix for future expansion
>  - we would be arbitrarily reverting our previous decisions on string syntax
>(2) Add the Grazulis proposal to CIF2 as per John Bollinger's draft, 
>and maintain the adjustments to string syntax that we've agreed to, 
>but drop triple-quoted strings;
>  - again we could reserve the triple-quoted prefix for future expansion
>(3) Ignore the Grazulis proposal and continue to search for an elide 
>solution based on triple-quoted strings;
>(4) Adopt the Grazulis proposal and continue to search for an 
>additional elide solution based on triple-quoted strings;
>
>I do not think that we will reach a mutually agreeable solution in 
>finite time for a triple-quoted string solution.  Both Herbert and 
>John W. seem quite certain that rich built-in semantics for 
>triple-quoted strings is appropriate.  I and others disagree, and I 
>think we have explored the arguments pretty thoroughly.  Therefore, 
>the practical option would be to drop triple-quoted strings 
>altogether or at least to defer them to a future minor enhancement 
>(by reserving the prefix). 
>
>I think the way forward therefore lies with either option (1) or 
>(2).  As John B. points out, there are no new reasons to revert to 
>CIF1.1 string handling, and this group has already spilt much ink on 
>discussing changes to string syntax, so option (2) seems the most 
>reasonable.
>
>Could everyone please give their thoughts on the above analysis.
>
>James.
>--
>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

Reply to: [list | sender only]