From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7624df5e57d09688 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-12 00:40:38 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!cs.tu-berlin.de!not-for-mail From: Volkert Barr Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: config files proposal Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:40:37 +0200 Organization: TU Berlin, Fachbereich Informatik Message-ID: <3D06FAF5.4FC8CA04@cs.tu-berlin.de> References: <3D03E1AD.80EB805D@san.rr.com> <3D04C9D0.7DFCED9D@san.rr.com> <4519e058.0206110515.729f4775@posting.google.com> <3D06273F.AD73660E@san.rr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.cs.tu-berlin.de 1023867637 4954 130.149.19.1 (12 Jun 2002 07:40:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@cs.tu-berlin.de NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Jun 2002 07:40:37 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.8 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:25781 Date: 2002-06-12T07:40:37+00:00 List-Id: Darren New wrote: > > Ted Dennison wrote: > > Yeah, but then you can't make group comments, like: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > -- The next few items set up system timeout values. Valid > > -- values range from 0 to 120. The units are in seconds. > > -- A timeout value of 0 indicates no timeout. > > Sure. Any comment more than 76 characters wide gets wrapped on output. > > > > -- This is comment one > > > key1=value1 > > > -- This is comment two > > > key2=value2 > > > > True, but it complicates the parsing code significantly, while XML > > could handle it easily with some kind of attribute-comment tag. > > Uh, it does? I don't *think* so. It seems quite straightforward to parse > such a thing. The problem here is not the parsing of an comment. The problem is to what kind of element the comment belongs. This information is needed, if i want my application to read, manipulate and write an configuration data from/back to a file without losing my comment information. Please, i have set up a small data model, which take this case into count (comment is traditionally called description). Look at http://swt.cs.tu-berlin.de/~barr/config_package.pdf. If such a case should be handled, is is up to us to define a appropriate grammar. Volkert