Discussion List Archives

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CIF-DEVELOPERS digest 36

  • Subject: Re: CIF-DEVELOPERS digest 36
  • From: "Brian H. Toby" <Brian.Toby@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 20:36:17 +0100 (BST)
> However, I draw your attention to the fact that the current production for
> <Exponent> in the cifsyntax document generalises the Hall, Allen & Brown
> paragraph 5 to explicitly permit the following representations to be
> considered as valid:
> 
>       -1.2345e1(2)
>       -1.2345E1(2)
>       -1.2345d1(2)
>       -1.2345D1(2)
>       -1.2345+1(2)
>       -1.2345e+1(2)  (etc)
> 
> Again,
>    (a) is anyone currently using the 'd' or '+' forms;
>    (b) are there any strong views on this generalisation?


I am not sure that I like all this complexity in representations. Did
the original STAR paper define the -1.2345+1(2) format as valid? 

I wonder how much of the existing CIF software will properly interpret a
value of +1.234e-002 or -1.234-002, lets say as an x-coordinate? At the
moment, mine will not. I can see now that I had better run a parse on
every CIF number before I try to use it as a numeric value.

Brian (T.)

Reply to: [list | sender only]
International Union of Crystallography

Scientific Union Member of the International Science Council (admitted 1947). Member of CODATA, the ISC Committee on Data. Partner with UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in the International Year of Crystallography 2014.

International Science Council Scientific Freedom Policy

The IUCr observes the basic policy of non-discrimination and affirms the right and freedom of scientists to associate in international scientific activity without regard to such factors as ethnic origin, religion, citizenship, language, political stance, gender, sex or age, in accordance with the Statutes of the International Council for Science.

Useful links