[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Simplifying string handling in CIF2
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Simplifying string handling in CIF2
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:06:24 -0400
- In-Reply-To: <CAM+dB2d65dGqS0D5B7dm9H0Za0HoRALyb7fDa-UAOTLrLeLQ=g@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAM+dB2d65dGqS0D5B7dm9H0Za0HoRALyb7fDa-UAOTLrLeLQ=g@mail.gmail.com>
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]
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Simplifying string handling in CIF2 (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: [ddlm-group] CIF2 semantics
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF2 semantics
- Prev by thread: [ddlm-group] Simplifying string handling in CIF2
- Next by thread: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporate intoCIF?
- Index(es):