Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec?

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:56:57 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 23.08.12 09:23, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
>> and XML stands in their way.
> 
> If XML stands in your way, OK.

Here is the exchange you cut:

> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 23:18:16 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>> On 22.08.12 19:44, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:48:03 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>>>> On 22.08.12 16:30, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>>>>> As always, the question is inefficient for what and for whom.
>>>>> For the network and the peers. The measures for both can be easily
>>>>> provided.
>>>> Well, that would depend on the specifics of "network" and its mode
>>>> of use, wouldn't it?
>>> There exist pretty general measures, e.g. number of bits, FLOPs, QoS and so
>>> on.
>> In the set called "and so on", information retrieval programs will
>> be efficient at all once they can interpret a data item to be an object
>> for which FLOPs make any sense.
> and XML stands in their way.

>>> That's easier to see when there is
>>> markup than when the program needs to guess
> 
>> Wasting time and memory.
> 
> So laborious guessing, looking for clues, is cheaper than just looking
> at a tag that clearly identifies the intent of the tagged item?

Nobody needs either parsing or guessing in order to exchange structured
data. Things you describe maybe are consequences of deployment of XML, but
they are in no way the premises.

> Remember: in my networks I work more like an archaeologist trying
> to understand the shards.

There are many thing one could do wrong. Using XML was seemingly not the
only one. If you and others would not deploy XML in your networks, the
"ceramic" would have been intact.

>>>> Ada is not proposed for exchanging structured data
>>>> between computers.
>>>
>>> It is, however, required to say how to exchange structured program
>>> source text between compilers.
>>
>> No
> 
> Yes, it is. Character set support, documentation requirements, ...

see RM 2.1 regarding Ada character set and for the rest. The purpose of the
language is described in RM 1.

Otherwise, I repeat: Ada is not proposed for exchanging structured data.
Thus any references to Ada are irrelevant.

>>>> between computers.

>>>> Ada is a programming language. XML in this context plays
>>>> the role of a protocol to exchange above mentioned data.
>>>
>>> No. It is a markup language for tagging data in text documents.
>>> We have been here before.
>>
>> That is it! XML is not for exchange of structured data.
> 
> No, XML is not a protocol for whatsoever.

Either

   "Yes, XML is not a protocol for whatsoever."

or

   "No, XML is a protocol for exchange of structured data."

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de