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

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

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.

>>>> 2. fails to capture the structure (e.g. recursive, interlinked structures)
>>>
>>> ?
>> 
>> Take Containers.Doubly_Linked_Lists as an example. The closure object of a
>> list is the structure in question.
> 
> "closure object" = ?

Linked list is not an object. An object could be a closure of the list upon
the relation predecessor-successor, e.g. a set of linked nodes.
 
> <l>
>  <it id = "one"           f="two" />
>  <it id = "two"   b="one" f="three" />
>  <it id = "three" b="two" />
> </l>

Which speaks for itself.

>>>> 6. requires complex, resource consuming, vulnerable infrastructure like
>>>> parsers
>>>
>>> Yes, there are cases where such parsers are needed, and even more
>>> of such things. For example, if you run Google.
>> 
>> Remember that the case in question is "exchanging structured data," not
>> running Google.
> 
> Google is the biggest thing on earth that exchanges data with
> just about everything outside microwave ovens.

This is why XML would not require complex, resource consuming, vulnerable
parsers?

>>>> 7. is not redundant and at the same time absolutely permissive (requires
>>>> complex validation of itself)
>>>
>>> Another set of unqualified word ({"redundant", ... })
>> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_%28engineering%29
> 
> (That's still unqualified, but as you say, redundancy may refer
> to layers. But there is more.)
> 
> The purpose of "syntactic excess" of XML is about the same as in Ada:

Not at all. Ada's redundancy is here to reduce influence of certain class
of programming errors. Ada is not proposed for exchanging structured data
between computers. Ada is a programming language. XML in this context plays
the role of a protocol to exchange above mentioned data. The nature of
errors which may appear upon such data exchange, their behavior has close
to nothing in common to the typo errors programmers do when they write Ada
code.

If you want to promote XML to a programming language that would be a
different beast, though no less ugly one.

>>> You don't have to write parser infrastructure when you
>>> can use XML.
>> 
>> 1. I don't need parser if I don't use XML.
> 
> I need to write many parsers if I can't use XML. I use data not
> generated by our programs.

In that case this is irrelevant to the issue. Other programs use formats
they do. If that requires parsing that is their problem. Two wrongs do not
make one right.

>> 3. Serialization is much simpler without XML. See Ada.Streams.
> 
> Is Ada's serialization easier for you, the 1 writer, or easier for
> the N unknown readers out there who might not be using Ada?

It is irrelevant whether they use Ada. Relevant is the architecture of the
protocol. A protocol similar to one of Ada streams deploy does not need
parsing.

>> Safety could be against
>> 
>> 1. intentional misuse
> 
> I don't see how any source of data could protect against misuse of data
> once data have left the "building".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature

>> 2. unintentional errors
> 
> ?

E.g. typo errors. Baiting, when you type some garbage to let the compiler
to make a suggestion etc.

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