[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
RE: The CIF BNF
- Subject: RE: The CIF BNF
- From: "Bollinger, John Clayton" <jobollin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:59:35 +0100 (BST)
Herbert Bernstein wrote: > However, I also believe it is time to extend the concept of a "CIF" to > include files with other line length limits (to be specified in the > relevant dictionary), so that I would suggest the BNF specify the > existence of a limit, giving 80 characters as an example, rather than > as an intrinsic part of the definition of a CIF. Well, right now the 80-character limit _is_ an intrinsic part of the definition of a CIF. If one just modifies the BNF then the result no longer describes a CIF -- one must first persuade COMCIFS to alter course on the CIF specification. My impression is that COMCIFS has historically resisted suggestions to modify the limit. As for the 80-character limit itself, I should like to see it lifted entirely. I very well appreciate that that would cause problems for Fortran programmers trying to deal with CIFs, but that argument is like the tail trying to wag the dog. I also recognize that the 80-character limit can make CIFs more readable in certain display and printing environments, but few people are limited to such environments. On the other hand, the limit is completely artificial, in that it is in no way driven by the content of the file; and it introduces unnecessary software compatibility issues, in that the handling of violations of the limit is not defined. Removing the limit would make it easier to adapt STAR parsers for CIF and vice versa. Why retain it in any form? Regards, John Bollinger -- John C. Bollinger, PhD Indiana University Molecular Structure Center jobollin@indiana.edu
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Prev by Date: Re: The CIF BNF
- Next by Date: RE: The CIF BNF
- Prev by thread: Re: The CIF BNF
- Next by thread: RE: The CIF BNF
- Index(es):