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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,9983e856ed268154 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.66.83.74 with SMTP id o10mr2309660pay.33.1345549753110; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 04:49:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.138.27 with SMTP id z27mr999583wei.13.1345549752780; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 04:49:12 -0700 (PDT) Path: kg8ni7725pbc.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news2.google.com!r1no21961206qas.0!news-out.google.com!q11ni241527549wiw.1!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.141.40.65.MISMATCH!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:49:03 +0200 From: Georg Bauhaus User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec? References: <501bd285$0$6564$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <502b832f$0$6579$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <502bc4df$0$6574$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <502bd3e6$0$6574$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <17qgsq5y7or0v.16z18fmcew1lt$.dlg@40tude.net> <502c149e$0$6579$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <502cd701$0$6568$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <502d3c68$0$6572$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <502e9039$0$6557$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <40tmogy4d1b5.1kc2gm8qfrkdu.dlg@40tude.net> <503240ed$0$6569$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <50326457$0$6576$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <1qril0ny3eczr$.1vlhpbrjyyb8k.dlg@40tude.net> In-Reply-To: <1qril0ny3eczr$.1vlhpbrjyyb8k.dlg@40tude.net> Message-ID: <503375ac$0$6565$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Aug 2012 13:49:00 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: c8fb4866.newsspool3.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=Vf:QGJVKGT>D]ncZ]`hZ;1McF=Q^Z^V384Fo<]lROoR18kF:Lh>_cHTX3j=9I7E8j=h0J6 X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2012-08-21T13:49:00+02:00 List-Id: On 20.08.12 21:28, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> Related Example that has been part of this discussion, >> and concern compiler configuration files: > > We have an excellent example how unmanageable Visual Studio became when MS > switched to XML. 1) For a reason, I have carefully avoided to say "XML". I have not given syntax, but I have described a meaningful process involving different consumers of text documents (configuration files), and have described a need to transform/adapt a set of specific configuration instructions for each of the different compilers. 2) But I did explain that "obfuscating companies" like Microsoft are very good at leveraging misuse of XML (or anything, at that) for commercial gain, predictably. The hint given was the 1:1 mapping of .doc to .docx. Orienting one's arguments along misuses of XML (or anything, for that matter) like the above has a second order effect on discussions, a logic that helps turn smart people into irrational anti-XML instruments: COMMANDMENT: Microsoft products must *never* have any feature that allows third parties to do anything not payed to, and controlled by, Microsoft. OPPOSING TREND: Customers and administrations ask for more transparency and control of their own data/documents, produced and stored using Microsoft products. They try to make XML stand for this. CONSEQUENCE: Microsoft must produce XML in such a way that (a) payments to Microsoft are unaffected and (b) so that no third party gains control. This consequence is not one attributable to the definition of XML (or any other way to express the same, for that matter). > As a hint observe > that configuration is no way hierarchical, Hierarchy of configuration or not is totally irrelevant, it may well be a list of pairs, or simply mentions of configuration items. Even though the example I have given involves project management and subordinate teams show hierarchy, it does not matter. To the hierarchy, the *same* non-hierarchical *intent* is to be conveyed in some meaningful form or other, calling for transformation/adaptation of the higher level intent. So again, non-hierarchy of configuration data is beside the point. > That it is non-trivial implies that the > configuration has a *semantics* far beyond dumb string to string mapping > which is all so-called XML "language" can offer. Any language that can express "switch to Integration/Testing this afternoon!" for each of the different compilers will do. The result will be a suitably transformed/adapted expression that uses the respective compiler's dumb configuration syntax. > But you forgot that you once called XML documentation. (Please, show me where I said documentation. I remember to have said "data document".) > It became a language > by now? I did not say language either. I'd rather not use an unqualified word such as "language". I might say "markup language", implying that documents become meaningful via ubiquitously implementable Transformation programs, for example. Situation now: Each compiler uses an idiolect for expressing "optimize some". One cannot use Janus/Ada directives for controlling ObjectAda, or GNAT, or Visual C++. Situation then: Each compiler continues to use an idiolect for expressing "optimize some", but there exist programs per compiler that allow management to express "optimize some" so that it is understood by each of the compilers. It so happens that these transformation programs need not use, but can use the combination of ubiquitously available XML and XSLT.