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

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

On 14.08.12 16:44, Shark8 wrote:
> On Monday, August 13, 2012 8:52:20 PM UTC-6, Vasiliy Molostov wrote:
>> Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com> писал(а) в своём письме Tue, 14 Aug  
>> 2012 02:16:00 +0400:
>>
>>> it's mainly intended to be used
>>> in the background with very little interaction. That's not always what
>>> customers want.
>>>
>>>                                     Randy.
>>
>> Why not to turn/move it into xml?
> 
> Because XML is a dirty, dirty format. 
> 
> There's truth, perhaps more than a bit, in this humor:
> 
> "XML is like violence. Sure, it seems like a quick and easy solution at first, but then it spirals out of control into utter chaos." -- Sarkos in reddit
> 
> "XML combines the efficiency of text files with the readability of binary files" -- unknown
> 
> 
> And less humorous:
> "Transformations, even identity transforms, result in changes to format (whitespace, attribute ordering, attribute quoting, whitespace around attributes, newlines). These problems can make "diff"ing the XML source very difficult." -- http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?XmlSucks
> 

Or, in other words, if programmers use XML as if it was
like program source text, XML turns out to be very different.

Wow. At least witty commentary compensates for the lack
of understanding of the basics of XML.

XML is not intended to be readable in the sense that Ada
was intended to be readable. Readable in the case of XML
means something more plain, something more technical:
that anyone can read XML documents using a pair of
eyes and a program like "more". No knowledge of any other
language is required, no knowledge of bit patterns is required.
Nor is XML intended for internal data formats.