[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
RE: CIF line folding/reassembly protocol
- Subject: RE: CIF line folding/reassembly protocol
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 22:36:18 +0100 (BST)
Syd and Nick will have to say how John's interprestation relates to the "original intent" of STAR. It is certainly not consistent with the original CIF software (CIFtbx), nor with the formal syntax document that has now been discussed for over two years. As long as we introduce the backslash line-folding convention, and the changes to existing data sets and software to conform to this change in the specification should be tedious but manageable. In many cases no change will be required, since the software in question simply passes text fields through unchanged. Keeping the change manageable assumes that it is not John's intention that a CIF parser would be required to somehow append a specific character for end-of-line to each line of a text field. Such a requirement would be dfficult or impossible to achieve for CIFtbx and other cross-platform Fortran CIF software packages. There is no cross-platform in-band end-of-line character in Fortran. -- Herbert ===================================================== Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 020 Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769 +1-631-244-3035 yaya@dowling.edu ===================================================== On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Bollinger, John Clayton wrote: > > Herb Bernstein wrote: > > The only problem with this proposal is a conflict with the > > recent proposal to somehow recognize a final end-of-line > > within all text fields. > > [...] > > I don't consider that a proposal or new -- I have claimed all along and > still maintain that it is the originally specified behavior. Even > though you prefer a different interpretation, I hope you can at least > agree that the chosen one is consistent with the original specs and thus > grant it the status of a clarification. Agreed, in any case, that the > line-folding proposal requires the specified modification to work > correctly with the chosen interpretation of text field values. > > John Bollinger > > -- > > John C. Bollinger, Ph.D. > Indiana University > Molecular Structure Center > > jobollin@indiana.edu >
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Prev by Date: RE: CIF line folding/reassembly protocol
- Next by Date: Re: Revised draft of CIF 1.1 syntax document
- Prev by thread: RE: CIF line folding/reassembly protocol
- Next by thread: Re: CIF-DEVELOPERS digest 39
- Index(es):