[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: Tidying up DDL1
- Subject: Re: Tidying up DDL1
- From: Matthew Towler <towler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 09:06:41 +0100
- In-Reply-To: <1120619738.21592.7.camel@anbf10>
- References: <1120619738.21592.7.camel@anbf10>
> _enumeration_range: "can apply to 'numb' or 'char' items which > have a preordained sequence"; is this meant to > include Mon:Fri, June:Sept etc? From a programming point of > view the range of application needs to be circumscribed, and > I would argue for restricting it to numbers only, which is consistent > with use in current DDL1 dictionaries. For small sets, > such as letters, we can just list them. We do this for the > element symbols, rather than just write _enumeration_range 'H':'U' I agree. The whole point of dictionaries is that the program using them does not have to know about types a-priori. Listing just the terminal values and expecting a program to insert the 'preordained' values goes directly against this principle. > I note that *_gt and *_lt data > names have appeared for situations that could have been covered by > constructions of the type a:b. I think the intention of the *_gt and *_lt data names was to cover cases such as "greater than 400 kelvin". The issues being to represent both an unbounded range in one direction and one that does not include the bounding value. The addition of the *_gt and *_lt data has the advantage that it does not require changing the CIF standard, but the disadvantages that it is not a general solution to a recurring problem, and that it significantly complicates the reading of data from a CIF. Matthew _______________________________________________ cif-developers mailing list cif-developers@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- Tidying up DDL1 (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Tidying up DDL1
- Next by Date: Re: Tidying up DDL1 (one added)
- Prev by thread: Tidying up DDL1
- Next by thread: Re: Tidying up DDL1 (one added)
- Index(es):