[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Triple-quoted strings in light of latest CIF2 draft
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Triple-quoted strings in light of latest CIF2 draft
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 21:40:05 -0400
- In-Reply-To: <CAM+dB2f4H2+rF_MkQ2wyMQEcj90hG1kNFe8tEz5xys88CyiE1g@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAM+dB2e57=tW6xMCrmAgXRGKFBERyYRX1LtNJKZEX-xe4F9L=w@mail.gmail.com><a06240800ca64fa33fe58@192.168.2.101><CAM+dB2c5fZ1UdVZ=3yCYLOLWp-beU+JJouumgkDf03VWj6gWqQ@mail.gmail.com><a06240801ca65718c6280@192.168.2.101><CAM+dB2cQFeo_OpgS-QOB8ffETGnwByRhxJFcn-MhGAjpE74oUQ@mail.gmail.com><alpine.BSF.2.00.1108090522460.9676@epsilon.pair.com><CAM+dB2e++s44bkN6TaG4w78vYQM5xYRXHkNUjpBqab7iMfgqAA@mail.gmail.com><a06240801ca6777a52625@192.168.2.101><CAM+dB2f4H2+rF_MkQ2wyMQEcj90hG1kNFe8tEz5xys88CyiE1g@mail.gmail.com>
Dear James, As noted previously and for the reasons stated, my vote on the draft as it now stands will, with regret, be negative. Regards, Herbert At 11:36 AM +1000 8/10/11, James Hester wrote: >Dear Herbert and DDLm group, > >Thanks Herbert for this list. Please be aware that I am hoping for >a final draft to be voted on at, or soon following, the Madrid >congress. A final draft cannot logically allow for future >incompatible changes. As I see nothing in Herbert's list that has >not been discussed already here, I will therefore press ahead with >pursuing a final draft in time for Madrid on the assumption that >this group was not, and will not, be able to reach agreement on the >items below in finite time. > >On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Herbert J. Bernstein ><<mailto:yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> >wrote: > >Dear James, > > I do not have a crystal ball, so all I can do is to guess at what >what result from future discussions. My best guesses are: > > I believe the most likely incompatible change will be the adoption >of the multi-line quoting mechanism from some version of Python. > > The second most likely changes be in the handling of text fields to >restore full compatibility with CIF 1.1 syntax, semantics and practice > > The third most likely changes would be a harmonization of all the >quoting mechanism to be closer to full Python practice with full use >of the escape sequences. > > The next area likely to introduce some small incompatibilities is >a final version of the disambiguation signatures. > > The next area likely to introduce incompatibilities is likely to be >an extension of the current restrictive whitespace-delimited string >to accept more of the CIF1 cases. > > The next likely area to introduce incompatibilities would be a mechanism >for support of CIF-1 style quoted strings in CIF2 documents. > > The next likely area to introduce incompatibilities would be the addition >of optional comma separators inside of bracketed constructs. > >etc. > >I don't think any of this involves problems for many data sets. I also >don't think CIF2 is likely to be stable for a few years, but I could >be wrong and things may settle down quickly without any of the above >happening. We'll see what happens. > > Regards, > Herbert > > > > > >At 9:43 AM +1000 8/10/11, James Hester wrote: >>Dear Herbert - For this draft to be a useable document, we must >>strictly limit the scope of any possible incompatible revisions. >>Could you please therefore list what particular further revisions >>you have in mind so that we can assess how significant these might >>be. >> >>We should be very close to a final draft so any, even minor, >>incompatible changes must be dealt with ASAP. >> >>On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein > > ><<mailto:<mailto:yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com><mailto:yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> >>wrote: >> > > >Dear James, >> >> We see things very differently. I find it difficult to understand >>the interactions of a syntax document with pieces in isolation and >>divorced from semantics. Others may or may not have a similar view. >>I am just one person. >> >>I find John's next iteration very useful. It makes it clear that >>I have failed clearly to express my concerns on the handling of the >>text field final newline and it does not speak >>to the status of the common semantic features document in a CIF2 >>context, so my vote on this proposal is negative. As I said, I >>am just one person, but that is my opinion. I believe that, while >>the combination of CIF 1.1, DDLm, dREL and the new dictionaries >>with be very useful and is ready for use, that this version of CIF 2 >>is not quite ready for use in user data files, yet. >> >>However, I would not wish to delay getting to that point, so what > >I would suggest it that this draft be put into use with the warning >>that it is subject to possible further small, but possibly >>incompatible revisions. >> >>Regards, >> Herbert >> >>===================================================== >> Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science >> Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121 >> Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769 >> > > > ><tel:%2B1-631-244-3035><tel:%2B1-631-244-3035>+1-631-244-3035 >> >><mailto:<mailto:yaya@dowling.edu>yaya@dowling.edu><mailto:yaya@dowling.edu>yaya@dowling.edu >>===================================================== >> > > >On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, James Hester wrote: >> >>Dear Herbert: I think it is an unreasonable imposition on busy people to >>require them to constantly edit and repost a complete draft document with no >>guarantee that their work will have moved the discussion forward, >>particularly when the proposed changes have been adequately described by >>email. John has nevertheless kindly provided an updated draft (attached, >>hopefully the attachment works). >> >>In future, I strongly suggest we proceed as follows: >>(1) we first conditionally agree or disagree or request clarification of >>proposed amendments; >>(2) after any further refinements, those amendments are put into the syntax >>draft in the expectation that only technical changes will be necessary; >>(3) we all have a final chance to check that we are satisfied with this >>final draft. >> >>I will address your comments on 'numb' type in the appropriate thread. >> >>I specifically did not propose reserving the various letter prefixes and I'm >>glad that you have clarified your position. Given that we have already had >>extensive discussion around triple quoted string semantics, the most >>appropriate course to follow now would be to vote on how much of the python >>triple-quoted string space to reserve. I think that vote will need to wait >>until we have agreement on the current amendments. >> >> >>On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Herbert J. Bernstein > > ><<mailto:<mailto:yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com><mailto:yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> >wrote: > > > Dear James, >> >> I don't explicitly agree or disagree with John B's proposed >> amendments, because I have not seem them in the context of a >> completed document. >> Especially in a pure syntax document isolated from semantics, >> "God and >> the Devil are in the details," i.e. in the precise form of the >> interactions among the productions of the language. John's >> latest >> message did not adopt >> my examples and clarifications, but promised some unspecified >> other >> examples, "Yesterday I wrote an example for combining the two >> protocols, and I can easily write one or two for the >> line-folding >> protocol on its own." >> John, himself seem uncomfortable with my clarifications. Nobody >> other than >> you has even accepted the interpretations of the text field >> termination. >> I look forward to a revised proposal bringing together what has >> been >> discussed thus far and we can all consider if it does or does >> not express >> an acceptable set of revisions to the existing CIF 1.1 >> specification. >> >> [edit] >> >> >> Most interestingly -- while I proposed a specific reservation >> for the >> Python 2.7 treble quote syntax, you have proposed a reservation >> for >> "all strings commencing with triple double quotes or triple >> quotes," >> which excludes the necessary reservations for the python style >> elides >> which impact when a string terminates and excludes the r""", >> b""", u""" >> treble quote initiators. I propose the following explicit >> wording >> be in the CIF2 document: >> >> Means of extending the string quoting mechanisms in CIF are >> under >> consideration. Strings conforming to the Python 2.7 triple >> quote >> syntax as specified in section 2.4.1 of >> > > > ><<http://docs.python.org/reference/lexical_analysis.html>http://docs.python.org/reference/lexical_analysis.html><http://docs.python.org/reference/lexical_analysis.html>http://docs.python.org/reference/lexical_analysis.html > > >and >> strings conforming to the Python 3.2 syntax as specified in >> section >> 2.4.1 of >> > > > ><<http://docs.python.org/py3k/reference/lexical_analysis.html>http://docs.python.org/py3k/reference/lexical_analysis.html><http://docs.python.org/py3k/reference/lexical_analysis.html>http://docs.python.org/py3k/reference/lexical_analysis.html > > > are reserved for future use and should not be used for any >> purpose >> that conflicts with the Python 2.7 or 3.2 interpretation in a >> CIF 2 >> document. In particular, string literals beginning with ''' or >> """ >> with or without any of the prefixes r, R, u, U, b, B or the >> various >> combinations of prefixes allowed in python should not be used >> with >> a meaning that conflicts with the python interpretation. >> >> While I personally prefer immediate adoption of the Python 2.7 >> flavor >> of treble quotes, this wording leaves all options from >> non-adoption >> to full adoption of 2.7 or 3.2 on the table. >> >> Regards, >> Herbert >> >> >> At 2:10 PM +1000 8/8/11, James Hester wrote: >>>Dear Herbert: you have not explicitly stated that you agree with >>>John B's proposed amendments, and so naturally no updated draft has >>>been produced. The latest comment on this issue was from John B and >> >I have seen no reply to that. Therefore, please indicate all those >>>amendments that John B. has proposed that you are satisfied with so >>>that they can be incorporated into the document. >>> >>>As you have in the past argued for the inseparability of syntax and >>>semantics, I have raised the various issues around 'numb' type and >>>indeed the internal semantics of strings in order to make sure that >>>they are addressed in a joint fashion. As a result of recent >>>discussions here, my belief is that there are no changes necessary >>>to CIF1.1 common semantics except: >>>(i) the issues around line folding protocol and Grazulis protocol >>>that we are currently discussing >>>(ii) clarification of the meaning of 'numb' type. >>> >>>I was suggesting that we reserve all strings commencing with triple >>>double quotes or triple quotes. How does this differ from your >>>proposal below? >>> >>>On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein > > >><<mailto:<mailto:<mailto:yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com><mailto:yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com><mailto:<mailto:yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com><mailto:yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> > > >>wrote: >>> >>>Dear Colleagues, >>> >>> I have not seen an updated draft in response to my comments. Have >>>I missed something? The last draft I see on the IUCr web site is >>>the one from 27 July, and that document does not include any of the >>>clarifications and comments that were in John's emails, especially >>his >>>email of 2 August. >>> >>> In addition, we have a sharp disagreement on the issue of syntax >>>without semantics. While I would prefer to have syntax and semantics >>>dealt with as a whole, at the very least we need to clarify the >>status >>>of the existing common semantics features document in the context >>>of CIF2. Do all features remain valid or are some deprecated or are >>>CIF2 semantics something for some future effort? >>> >>> If we are "to reserve triple-quoted strings for future expansion" >>then >>>we need to be specific about what we are reserving. I would propose >>>reserving all sequences conforming to all the python 2.7 treble quote >>>lexing rules for future expansion. >>> >>> My vote on the 27 July document without further clarification >>will, >>>with regret, have to be negative. While I am a strong proponent of >>>moving forward with dREL, DDLm and the new dictionaries, I believe >>>that the combination of CIF 1.1, dREL, DDLm and the new dictionaries > >>would better serve the community at this time than would use of CIF 2 >>>as currently specified, except to the minimal extent needed to >>>write the dictionaries. That way all current CIF data sets and most >>>CIF software will remain valid and people can continue to work as >>they >>>are working until a complete new specification with supporting >>software >>>is ready for them. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Herbert >>> >>>P.S. While writing this message, James' message that says: >>> >>>At 1:10 PM +1000 8/8/11, James Hester wrote: >>>>I am not proposing a change to CIF1.1 behaviour, as I have stated >>>>before, so any 'asking for trouble' is purely CIF1.1 asking for >>>>trouble. >>>> >>>>The cif2cif example has focused my thinking. Given that I am not >>>>actually proposing anything new, there are no consequences for such >>>>programs in clarifying that CIF1.1 'numb' datavalues have a dual >>>>'number'/'char' datatype. >>> >>>I do not understand how this addresses the design of a rule of 19 to >>>rule of 9 converter such as cif2cif, nor do I understand how this >>>addresses the handling of ISSNs and page ranges without a dictionary >>>to say the values involved are ISSNs and page ranges. I would >>suggest >>>this issue be on the closed meeting agenda. Perhaps we can find >>>some mutual agreement. -- HJB >>> >>> >>>At 12:26 PM +1000 8/8/11, James Hester wrote: >>>>As I understand it, the current position of this group on the latest >>>>draft, incorporating Saulius's suggestions, is generally positive. >>>>Herbert has raised some technical concerns, which I believe that >>>>John B. has answered more than adequately. If any concerns remain >>>>among any members of this group, please advise as to what they are >>>>and (if relevant) how the draft should be changed to address them. >>>> >>>>The related discussion topic was waiting for the latest draft was >> >>the fate of triple-quoted strings. Assuming that the latest CIF2 >>>>syntax draft is accepted, and given the lack of agreement on >>>>triple-quoted string syntax and semantics, should we simply drop >>>>triple-quoted strings from the CIF2 syntax, possibly reserving >>>>triple quotes for future expansion? I would appreciate anybody with >>>>an opinion on this contributing now so that we can have a hope of >>>>wrapping it up before or during Madrid. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Herbert J. Bernstein >>> > > >> ><<mailto:<mailto:<mailto:<mailto:yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com><mailto:yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com><mailto:<mailto:yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.co>yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.co><mailto:yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.co>yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.co >>m><mailto:<mailto:<mailto:yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com><mailto:yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com><mailto:<mailto:yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com><mailto:yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> > > >> >>> >wrote: >>>> >>>> > I take it, then, that you do not find the Sugar\nFlour\nButter >>example >>> >> in the current draft to be sufficient for this purpose. Fair >>enough, >>>>> but that leaves me uncertain of what kind of clarification you >>are >>>> > looking for. Perhaps you would be willing to suggest something >>>>> specific? >>>>> >>>> >>>>I would suggest a clear statement of the intended meaning for >>>> >>>>;abcd >>>>; >>>> >>>>;\ >>>>ab\ >>>>cd >>>>; >>>> >>>>;\ >>>>ab\ >>>>cd\ >>>>; >>>> >>>>;CIF>\\ >>>>CIF>ab\ >>>>CIF>cd >>>>; >>>> >>>>The combination of the current draft and your email leads me to >>>>suspect that all of these may be intended to be equivalent >>>>to "abcd" and to 'abcd' and to a blank delimited abcd >>>> >>>>Is that correct? If not, please disambiguate as appropriate. >>>> >>>> >>>>> If it would help, I would be happy to add a brief clarifying >>remark to >>>>> Change 11 that summarizes the status of comment line folding in >>CIF2. >>>>> For example: "Although CIF 1.1's common semantic features >>include an >>>>> analogous line-folding protocol for comments, that protocol is >>not >>>>> incorporated into CIF 2.0 _syntax_. Although it remains outside > >the >>>>> scope of CIF syntax, it is anticipated that some CIF 2.0 >>processors will >>>>> continue to recognize that protocol." >>>> >>>>I understand neither your analysis nor your suggested wording. >>>>You seem to be arguing issues not in dispute. >>>>How about the following? >>>> >>>>"The analagous line-folding protocol for comments specified in >>>>paragraph 26 of the common semantic features of CIF 1.1 >>>>remains a common semantic feature of CIF 2. There is no >>>>change in comment syntax between CIF 1.1 and CIF2." >>>> >>>> >>>>> That is a question of application design, not CIF syntax. It is >>>>> perilous to write files using that formalism, as some CIF >>processors >>>>> would certainly reject them, but that's outside the scope of the >>spec. >>>>> The spec merely defines that such files are not well-formed >>CIFs. As >>>>> for reading files that use it, I adapt an old saw from the >>Fortran >>>>> community: if the file does not comply with the CIF >>specifications then >>>>> a processor may do anything it wants with it, including starting >>World >>>>> War III. I do trust that most CIF readers will exercise greater >>>>> restraint, however. >>>> >>>>This is a technically defensible but impractical position. >>>>Some syntax errors make it impossible to guess the intent >>>>of the text. Some syntax errors have a clear intent. >>>>Most syntax errors are in some fuzzy middle ground. >>>>The normal practice is extending languages is to try >>>>to add new constructs somewhere in the middle ground >>>>of syntax errors with clear intent or at the boundary. >>>>It is in large part becuase of the espousal of a similar >>>>position to yours by X3J3 that I have a supply of >>>>bumper stickers that say "Save Fortran -- Ban X3J3" >>>>The community voted with its feet (and programs) and >>>>the current Fortran practice is for compilers to >>>>compile almost everything that looks like a reasonable >>>>variant of Fortran-77, Fortran-8x, Fortran-9x and Fortran-2003 >>>>with a minimum of fuss. I was just compiling a Fortran-77 >>>>program with the latest gfortran and it accepted the program >>>>happily and without a single warning (even though I >>>>used -Wall). I use the same compiler to handle rather >> >>recent Fprtran-2003 code including code with the new ISO >>>>C binding to allow mixed C and Fortran. I think the >>>>current approach to be a much better way to design >>>>processing software than the old X3J3 approach of the >>>>1980 and early 1990s that kept breaking old programs. >>>> >>>>===================================================== >>>> Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science >>>> Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121 >>>> Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769 >>>> >>> >>> > >>> > > >><tel:%2B1-631-244-3035><tel:%2B1-631-244-3035><tel:%2B1-631-244-3035><tel:%2B1-631-244-3035>+1-631-244-3035 >>>> >>>><mailto:<mailto:<mailto:<mailto:yaya@dowling.edu>yaya@dowling.edu><mailto:yaya@dowling.edu>yaya@dowling.edu><mailto:<mailto:yaya@dowling.edu>yaya@dowling.edu><mailto:yaya@dowling.edu>yaya@dowling.edu><mailto:<mailto:<mailto:yaya@dowling.edu>yaya@dowling.edu><mailto:yaya@dowling.edu>yaya@dowling.edu> > > ><mailto:<mailto:yaya@dowling.edu>yaya@dowling.edu><mailto:yaya@dowling.edu>yaya@dowling.edu >>> >>> >===================================================== >>>> >>>>On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Bollinger, John C wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Herbert, >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, August 01, 2011 5:48 PM, you wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The present change document is unclear about the non-inclusion >>of the >>>>>> terminal linefeed in all text fields. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I take it, then, that you do not find the Sugar\nFlour\nButter >>example >>> >> in the current draft to be sufficient for this purpose. Fair >>enough, >>>>> but that leaves me uncertain of what kind of clarification you >>are >>>>> looking for. Perhaps you would be willing to suggest something >>>>> specific? >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> If the comment side of the original line-folding protocol is >>>> >> acceptable, the change document should say so. Otherwise, by > >>>>> explicitly including the text field part of paragraph 26, but >>>>>> not the comment part, the impression might be created that >>>>>> the comment line folding is excluded from CIF2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Comment folding is acceptable, _and_ it is excluded *from >>>>> standardization* into CIF *syntax*. These are compatible >>because 1) >>>>> Folding and unfolding comments does not change the syntactic >>validity of >>>>> CIFs 2) Comments have no meaning to CIF, other than constituting >>>>> whitespace, so folded and unfolded forms are syntactically, >>>>> grammatically, and even semantically equivalent from a CIF >>perspective. >>>>> >>>>> Other kinds of comment transformation are in the same class, and >>are >>>>> equally acceptable and equally non-standardized. For example, >>one could >>>>> imagine transforming CIF comments by adding, removing, or >>regularizing >>>>> whitespace between the comment start character and the first >>printable >>>>> character. >>>>> >>>>> The CIF syntax specifications do not require any particular >>handling of >>>>> comments beyond treating them as whitespace. Processors aren't >>required >>>>> even to retain them or pass them on to an application, though >>they are >>>>> certainly permitted to do so. Likewise, they are permitted >>perform any >>>>> transformation they wish on comment bodies. There is no >>advantage in >>>>> choosing any one particular transformation to promote from a >>"may" to a >>>>> "must". >>>>> >>>>> Text field prefixing provides a good contrast. It must be >>included in >>>>> the syntax if we want it, because it imposes additional syntax >>>>> requirements on text fields (either their bodies must not start >>with a >>>>> prefix or every line must be prefixed as specified by the >>protocol). >>>>> >>>>> Text field line folding is in the middle. It doesn't impose any >>>>> additional syntactic constraints, but its inclusion would be >>justified >>>>> by its role in ensuring that CIF syntax is capable of expressing >>>>> arbitrary string values. There is no analogous general mandate >>for CIF >>>>> comments. >>>>> >>>>> If it would help, I would be happy to add a brief clarifying >>remark to >>>>> Change 11 that summarizes the status of comment line folding in >>CIF2. >>>>> For example: "Although CIF 1.1's common semantic features >>include an >>>>> analogous line-folding protocol for comments, that protocol is >>not >>>>> incorporated into CIF 2.0 _syntax_. Although it remains outside >>the >>>>> scope of CIF syntax, it is anticipated that some CIF 2.0 >>processors will >>>>> continue to recognize that protocol." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The question on a terminal ;\ was not whether is it >>syntactically >>>>>> correct under the current CIF2 document, but what the document >>>>>> expects us to do about it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The CIF syntax specification does not answer that question. CIF >>syntax >>>>> places no particular expectations on what processors should do >>with >>>>> input that fails to be well-formed CIF. Indeed, it places very >>few >>>>> expectations even on what they should do with input that *is* >>>>> well-formed CIF. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> It comes up because in existing >>>>>> validation suites for the line-folding protocol under CIF1, >>rather >>>>>> than treating as an error, it uses it as a way to allow an >>>>>> embedded \n; in a line-folded text field. Inasmuch as we are >>>>>> in agreement that \n;\ is not a syntactically valid termination >>>>>> of a text field in CIF2 as defined in the change document, >>there >>>>>> is no harm in those of us who use the construct under as a >>>>>> non-conflicting extension to CIF1 to continue to do so under >>CIF2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That is a question of application design, not CIF syntax. It is >>>>> perilous to write files using that formalism, as some CIF >>processors >>>>> would certainly reject them, but that's outside the scope of the >>spec. >>> >> The spec merely defines that such files are not well-formed >>CIFs. As >>>>> for reading files that use it, I adapt an old saw from the > >Fortran >>>>> community: if the file does not comply with the CIF >>specifications then >>>>> a processor may do anything it wants with it, including starting >>World >>>>> War III. I do trust that most CIF readers will exercise greater >>>>> restraint, however. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> John C. Bollinger, Ph.D. >>>>> Department of Structural Biology >>>> > St. Jude Children's Research Hospital >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Email Disclaimer: >>> >>> >> > > >><<<<http://www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer>http://www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer><http://www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer>http://www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer><<http://www.stjude.org/emaildisclai>http://www.stjude.org/emaildisclai><http://www.stjude.org/emaildisclai>http://www.stjude.org/emaildisclai >>mer><<<http://www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer>http://www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer><http://www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer>http://www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer><<http://www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer>http://www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer><http://www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer>www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ddlm-group mailing list >>>>> >>>>><mailto:<mailto:<mailto:<mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>ddlm-group@iucr.org><mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>ddlm-group@iucr.org><mailto:<mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>ddlm-group@iucr.org><mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>ddlm-group@iucr.org><mailto:<mailto:<mailto:ddlm-group@>ddlm-group@>ddlm-group@ >><<http://iucr.org>http://iucr.org><http://iucr.org>iucr.org><mailto:<mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>ddlm-group@iucr.org><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><http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group>http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group><<http://scripts.iuc>http://scripts.iuc><http://scripts.iuc>http://scripts.iuc >><<http://r.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group>http://r.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group><http://r.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group>r.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group><<<http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo>http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo><http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo>http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo > > >/ddlm-group><<http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group>http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group><http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group>http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group >>>>> > > >>>_______________________________________________ >>>>ddlm-group mailing list >>>><mailto:<mailto:<mailto:<mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>ddlm-group@iucr.org><mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>ddlm-group@iucr.org><mailto:<mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>ddlm-group@iucr.org><mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>ddlm-group@iucr.org><mailto:<mailto:<mailto:ddlm-grou>ddlm-grou>ddlm-grou >><mailto:<mailto:p@iucr.org>p@iucr.org><mailto:p@iucr.org>p@iucr.org><mailto:<mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>ddlm-group@iucr.org><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><http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group>http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group><<http://scripts.iucr>http://scripts.iucr><http://scripts.iucr>http://scripts.iucr >>.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group><<<http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/>http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/><http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/>http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ > > >ddlm-group><<http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group>http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group><http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group>http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group >>> >>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>-- >>>>T > > >>><tel:%2B61%20%2802%29%209717%209907><tel:%2B61%20%2802%29%209717%209907>+61 >>>>(02) 9717 9907 >>>>F >>>><tel:%2B61%20%2802%29%209717%203145><tel:%2B61%20%2802%29%209717%203145>+61 >>>>(02) 9717 3145 >>>>M >>>><tel:%2B61%20%2804%29%200249%204148><tel:%2B61%20%2804%29%200249%204148>+61 > > >>>(04) 0249 4148 >>>> >>> >>> >_______________________________________________ >>>>ddlm-group mailing list > > >>><mailto:<mailto:<mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>ddlm-group@iucr.org><mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>ddlm-group@iucr.org><mailto:<mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>ddlm-group@iucr.org><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><http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group>http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group><<http://scripts.iucr>http://scripts.iucr><http://scripts.iucr>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 >>> >>> > > >> ><tel:%2B1-631-244-3035><tel:%2B1-631-244-3035><tel:%2B1-631-244-3035>+1-631-244-3035 >>> >>> >>><mailto:<mailto:<mailto:yaya@dowling.edu>yaya@dowling.edu><mailto:yaya@dowling.edu>yaya@dowling.edu><mailto:<mailto:yaya@dowling.edu>yaya@dowling.edu><mailto:yaya@dowling.edu>yaya@dowling.edu >>>===================================================== >>> > > >>_______________________________________________ >>>ddlm-group mailing list >>><mailto:<mailto:<mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>ddlm-group@iucr.org><mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>ddlm-group@iucr.org><mailto:<mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>ddlm-group@iucr.org><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><http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group>http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group><<http://scripts.iucr.o>http://scripts.iucr.o><http://scripts.iucr.o>http://scripts.iucr.o > > >rg/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>T >>><tel:%2B61%20%2802%29%209717%209907><tel:%2B61%20%2802%29%209717%209907>+61 >>>(02) 9717 9907 >>>F >>><tel:%2B61%20%2802%29%209717%203145><tel:%2B61%20%2802%29%209717%203145>+61 >>>(02) 9717 3145 >>>M >>><tel:%2B61%20%2804%29%200249%204148><tel:%2B61%20%2804%29%200249%204148>+61 >>>(04) 0249 4148 >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>ddlm-group mailing list >>><mailto:<mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>ddlm-group@iucr.org><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><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 >> >> >> <tel:%2B1-631-244-3035><tel:%2B1-631-244-3035>+1-631-244-3035 >> >> <mailto:<mailto:yaya@dowling.edu>yaya@dowling.edu><mailto:yaya@dowling.edu>yaya@dowling.edu >>===================================================== >>_______________________________________________ >>ddlm-group mailing list >><mailto:<mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>ddlm-group@iucr.org><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><http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group>http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group > > > >> >> >> >>-- >>T >><tel:%2B61%20%2802%29%209717%209907><tel:%2B61%20%2802%29%209717%209907>+61 >>(02) 9717 9907 >>F >><tel:%2B61%20%2802%29%209717%203145><tel:%2B61%20%2802%29%209717%203145>+61 >>(02) 9717 3145 >>M >><tel:%2B61%20%2804%29%200249%204148><tel:%2B61%20%2804%29%200249%204148>+61 >>(04) 0249 4148 >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ddlm-group mailing list >><mailto:<mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>ddlm-group@iucr.org><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><http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group>http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group > > >> >> >> >>-- > > >T <tel:%2B61%20%2802%29%209717%209907>+61 (02) 9717 9907 >>F <tel:%2B61%20%2802%29%209717%203145>+61 (02) 9717 3145 >>M <tel:%2B61%20%2804%29%200249%204148>+61 (04) 0249 4148 >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 > > <tel:%2B1-631-244-3035>+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 > > > > >-- >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] Triple-quoted strings in light of latest CIF2 draft (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Triple-quoted strings in light of latest CIF2 draft (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Triple-quoted strings in light of latest CIF2 draft (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Triple-quoted strings in light of latest CIF2 draft (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Triple-quoted strings in light of latest CIF2 draft (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Triple-quoted strings in light of latest CIF2 draft (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Triple-quoted strings in light of latest CIF2 draft
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Triple-quoted strings in light of latest CIF2 draft
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Triple-quoted strings in light of latest CIF2 draft
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Triple-quoted strings in light of latest CIF2 draft
- Index(es):