[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Removing Octal,Hexadecimal and Binary as DDLm types
- To: Simon Westrip <[email protected]>, Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Removing Octal,Hexadecimal and Binary as DDLm types
- From: =?UTF-8?Q?Saulius_Gra=c5=beulis?= <[email protected]>
- Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:26:50 +0200
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- References: <CAM+dB2dN7PGp+ZTBHYaOqGgSKb0urGYsCcu2oLk8XhzU9WeDcQ@mail.gmail.com><[email protected]>
On 2018-02-19 13:13, Simon Westrip wrote:> Hi James - I'd be inclined just to drop the types in DDLm.> Extending the semantics used for presenting numbers> seems like placing an unnecessary burden on CIF application developers> (obliged to look out for octal, hexadecimal, binary ...) May I chime in as an implementer: actually, burden is not so large; if standard (libc-compatible)representations are used, all these cases are handled by standardlibraries, no extra coding is necessary. Regards,Saulius -- Dr. Saulius GražulisVilnius University Institute of Biotechnology, Saulėtekio al. 7LT-10257 Vilnius, Lietuva (Lithuania)fax: (+370-5)-2234367 / phone (office): (+370-5)-2234353mobile: (+370-684)-49802, (+370-614)-36366_______________________________________________ddlm-group mailing [email protected]http://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Removing Octal,Hexadecimal and Binary as DDLm types
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Removing Octal,Hexadecimal and Binary as DDLm types
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Removing Octal,Hexadecimal and Binary as DDLm types
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Removing Octal,Hexadecimal and Binary as DDLm types
- Index(es):