CIF specification: reserved prefixes
Doug du Boulay ddb at R3401.msl.titech.ac.jpWed Oct 29 14:07:20 GMT 2003
- Previous message: CIF specification: reserved prefixes
- Next message: CIF specification: reserved prefixes
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sorry Brian, my email address has changed so I think my first COMCIFs email may have gone to /dev/null. Maybe this one should too. Buf for what its worth .... At 12:06 PM +0000 10/28/03, Brian McMahon wrote: >I can in fact see no useful purpose in permitting an underscore *within* a >registered prefix - it simply complicates the task of the parser. At this Probably misunderstandings on my part, but I had the impression that _data_name_tags had no semantic meaning of their own and parsing them is therefore against CIF philosophy. All the meaning is embedded in the associated dictionary definition for which there should be a precise string match. On the other hand, I thought that "." characters were synonymous with underscores in ddl2 and _ddl2_data.name_tags[] needed to be parsed and interpreted. So perhaps ".", "[" and "]" characters should also be banned from prefixes in order not to trip up any software making such philosophically corrupt interpretations? Doug du Boulay
- Previous message: CIF specification: reserved prefixes
- Next message: CIF specification: reserved prefixes
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the comcifs mailing list