RE: CCL proposal (quotes)

Okay, I'll just come right out and say it.  I hate the idea of double-quotes
inside of strings!  I'm sure I'm just being old fashioned, but it feels like
a parsing nightmare.  Whatever happened to the good old backslash to escape
things?  I have no problems with a proposal that 123?4\56 means that the
five is a literal and not a digit and should be ignored by the question-mark
processor.  But I don't like 123?4"5"6.

Sorry.

Ralph

"No sir, I don't like it!"
The Horse from Ren and Stimpy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Reichert [mailto:markr@sirs.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 7:56 AM
> To: Z39.50 LISTSERV
> Subject: Re: CCL proposal (quotes)
> 
> 
> I knew I had it around somewhere.  Z39.58-1992 is/was clear 
> on this matter.
> 
> 7.7.2.1
> 
> ...
> When ? is immediately followed by a positive integer, it 
> shall be used to
> indicate a limited range of characters to be masked, from 
> zero up to and
> including the specified integer....  To search embedded 
> numbers, restoration
> marks are required.  See Section 7.7.7.
> 
> 7.7.7
> 
> In order to use a reserved command word, abbreviation, 
> symbol, or operator
> as a search word, double quotation marks, " ", shall be used 
> to restore its
> literal meaning....
> 
> FIND 0?10"5" // ten zeroes followed by a five (my example)
> FIND C?"14" // word beginning with C, ending in 14 (from 
> Z39.58 appendix)
> 
> # has no interaction with digits:  Multiple #s shall be used 
> to indicate
> that a precise number of characters greater than one and qual 
> to the number
> of # symbols are to be masked (7.7.2.2).
> 
> The standard never offered an explicit explanation/example of 
> restoring ",
> but presumably by 7.7.2.1...
> 
> FIND """Some text in quotes"""
> 
> There is no mention of the more typical "" escaping.
> 
> The portion of a <search_term> that corresponds to restoration is:
> 
> {<restoration><word>[<space><word>]...<restoration>}
> 
> <restoration> ::= [<space>}<">[<space>]
> <space> ::= < >[< >}...
> <word> ::= {<char>|<var_mask>|<exact_mask>}...
> <var_mask> ::= <?>[<positive_integer>]
> <exact_mask> ::= <#>[<#>]...
> <char> ::= <any_searchable_char>
> <any_searchable_char> ::= any character locally defined as searchable
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> > Not making it to the ZIG, someone sent me some private mail 
> indicating
> > that Ralph's proposed single digit after '?' change got accepted
> > and possibly no-one mentioned my counter double quotes suggestion.
> > Fair enough, if you don't turn up you have less influence.
> >
> > Just thought I would have a last bash at a compromise with the idea
> > that if the CCL regexp is changing, may as well try and get as many
> > changes in as possible in one hit rather than change it again later.
> >
> > To repeat the problem I currently have with the CCL regexp is that
> > you cannot specify '?' or '#' as literal text (ie, release their
> > special meaning). So even if there is now allowed only to be a
> > single digit after '?', while the spec is being changed is it worth
> > allowing double quotes ('"') to be used to release special chars
> > anyway? This would allow 'find all terms starting with "#"'.
> > At present, you cannot do this with the CCL regexp. Normally
> > regexp's have release mechanism ( \ for regexp-1 I believe).
> > CCL uses " as a release mechanism so seemed the natural thing
> > to use in the CCL regexp (rather than \ which in CCL has no
> > special meaning).
> >
> > It seems an oversight not to allow searching for serial numbers etc
> > using patterns.
> >
> >     #41434
> >     #53423
> >
> > If people have to change their CCL regexp implementation anyway,
> > I would rather do both changes at the same time and make it possible
> > to search for all possible characters.
> >
> > I wonder also if the Z39.58/CCL regexp attribute needs to be renamed
> > to indicate that it no longer conforms to CCL. I don't actually have
> > a copy of Z39.58, but if its anything like the ISO version of CCL
> > the spec is so woolly that it isn't funny! The formal grammar is
> > given by examples only, and the examples contradict themselves
> > in places! (Mind you, the copy I have of ISO8777 is pretty old now
> > so maybe its been improved.) Not stressed, just thought it was the
> > correct time to at least ask the question.
> >
> > Alan
> > --
> > Alan Kent (mailto:ajk@mds.rmit.edu.au, 
> http://www.mds.rmit.edu.au/~ajk/)
> > Project: TeraText Technical Director, InQuirion Pty Ltd
> (www.inquirion.com)
> > Postal: Multimedia Database Systems, RMIT, GPO Box 2476V, 
> Melbourne 3001.
> > Where: RMIT MDS, Bld 91, Level 3, 110 Victoria St, Carlton 3053, VIC
> Australia.
> > Phone: +61 3 9925 4114  Reception: +61 3 9925 4099  Fax: 
> +61 3 9925 4098
>

Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2002 10:31:28 UTC