On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 11:37 +0100, Andreas Lauser wrote:
> Am Montag, 4. März 2013, 07:58:34 schrieb Joakim Hove:
> > > std::map<std::string, std::vector<string> >
> >
> > That's not nearly enough. By a long shot. First of all, keywords can be
> > repeated, can specify parts of the data in one instance and the rest in
> > another. Or overwrite existing data. Second, keyword data for anything
> > other than mere block properties have (very) specialised formats so teasing
> > it into a list of strings requires at least *some* intelligence. There is
> > also the 'INCLUDE' (and IMPORT) keyword as well as 'PATHS'.
> >
> > Well; I must agree with Bård here. My experience from working with ECLIPSE
> > files (mostly binary, but also some of the .DATA content) is that the
> > amount of special cases, weirdness and surprises is quite large; if you
> > start out with too low level of abstraction on your data structures you
> > will pay for it ☹
>
> Hm, okay. Seems like the eclipse files I have are too simplistic. But
> isn't there a (relatively) simple generic syntax for the file format?
I'm afraid not. Some (most) keywords consist of (essentially) a single
data record, terminated by a '/' character. Some keywords have no
associated data. Other keywords have no terminator. Some keywords have
an arbitrary number of records (e.g., 'PVTO', 'WELSPECS' or 'COMPDAT')
and are terminated by a null record (line) consisting only of '/'. Add
to this that the number of data items in many records are generally
dependent upon descriptive metadata in the 'RUNSPEC' section and you end
up with a highly convoluted structure.
There is really only one general statement you can make about the
structure of keywords and that is that the keyword string matches the
regular expression
^[A-Z][A-Z0-9]\{1,7\}
Anything else is more or less special case treatment for each keyword.
Happily, many of the keywords in the 'GRID' section have the *same*
special case treatment, so there is at least *some* commonality in the
input file processing.
[snip]
> I assumption is that if you do not have to deal with seemingly simple
> stuff like comments, line continuation, include statements, etc in the
> code which adds sematics to the syntax, that code will be much easier
> to write and to understand...
Maybe so, but *every* realistic .DATA file uses INCLUDE (possibly
multiple levels) and comments.
Bård
_______________________________________________
Opm mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.opm-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opm
