* Any Ada source XML serialization standard?
@ 2012-04-06 17:54 Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
2012-04-06 19:01 ` Peter C. Chapin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) @ 2012-04-06 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
In the search of the best ways to disconnect source representation and
source storage, which is required to leave the stone‑age era we still live
in (heavy words, I know), I am seeking for a standard XML representation
for various languages, as XML (possibly its binary variant) seems the most
obvious choice, because good enough and standard, at least to me.
I read about a so called cppML, whose purpose was precisely that, but for
C++. As there use to be a cppML, I naively searched for an adaML or some
sort of that, but failed. By the way, this cppML seems dead, or am I wrong?
Any known Ada source XML serialization standard in the place? Preferably a
unique and single standard :-P
With thanks, and wish you to enjoy a nice day.
--
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Any Ada source XML serialization standard?
2012-04-06 17:54 Any Ada source XML serialization standard? Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
@ 2012-04-06 19:01 ` Peter C. Chapin
2012-04-06 21:41 ` Simon Wright
2012-04-07 14:54 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Peter C. Chapin @ 2012-04-06 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
On 2012-04-06 13:54, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
> I read about a so called cppML, whose purpose was precisely that, but
> for C++. As there use to be a cppML, I naively searched for an adaML or
> some sort of that, but failed. By the way, this cppML seems dead, or am
> I wrong?
I wonder if one could hijack ASIS for this purpose. That is, define an
XML representation of Ada source using XML elements with names that
correspond to ASIS elements. Such an approach might allow a certain
amount of "mindshare" between the two systems. A person familiar with
ASIS could easily understand the XML representation or visa-versa.
Peter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Any Ada source XML serialization standard?
2012-04-06 19:01 ` Peter C. Chapin
@ 2012-04-06 21:41 ` Simon Wright
2012-04-07 14:54 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Simon Wright @ 2012-04-06 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
"Peter C. Chapin" <PChapin@vtc.vsc.edu> writes:
> On 2012-04-06 13:54, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
>
>> I read about a so called cppML, whose purpose was precisely that, but
>> for C++. As there use to be a cppML, I naively searched for an adaML or
>> some sort of that, but failed. By the way, this cppML seems dead, or am
>> I wrong?
>
> I wonder if one could hijack ASIS for this purpose. That is, define an
> XML representation of Ada source using XML elements with names that
> correspond to ASIS elements. Such an approach might allow a certain
> amount of "mindshare" between the two systems. A person familiar with
> ASIS could easily understand the XML representation or visa-versa.
http://www.mckae.com/avatox.html
http://gnat-asis.sourceforge.net/pmwiki.php/Main/ASIS2XML
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Any Ada source XML serialization standard?
2012-04-06 19:01 ` Peter C. Chapin
2012-04-06 21:41 ` Simon Wright
@ 2012-04-07 14:54 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
2012-04-09 21:25 ` Manuel Collado
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) @ 2012-04-07 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
Hi Peter,
Le Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:01:46 +0200, Peter C. Chapin <PChapin@vtc.vsc.edu>
a écrit:
> On 2012-04-06 13:54, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
>
>> I read about a so called cppML, whose purpose was precisely that, but
>> for C++. As there use to be a cppML, I naively searched for an adaML or
>> some sort of that, but failed. By the way, this cppML seems dead, or am
>> I wrong?
>
> I wonder if one could hijack ASIS for this purpose. That is, define an
> XML representation of Ada source using XML elements with names that
> correspond to ASIS elements. Such an approach might allow a certain
> amount of "mindshare" between the two systems. A person familiar with
> ASIS could easily understand the XML representation or visa-versa.
ASIS adds interpretation, while an XML representation of Ada source should
not. There are, in the Ada language, some intentional ambiguities, like
the famous one which allow to write the same way, a function invocation
and a reference to an array element. It's a long time I did not play with
ASIS, however if my mind is right, for ASIS, “E (F)” is not same when E is
a function or an array.
Using the BNF grammars terms as found in the RM, may not always be OK for
the same reasons (as the terms refers to interpretations), while it seems
to be the best starting point. If the RM could explicitly point
intentional ambiguities and provides names for these intentionally
ambiguous source constructs, this would be an aid.
The purpose is to get ride of formating (would be automatically applied by
the view depending on user own preferences) and to be able to easily
access to source as structured data. With the addition of XML namepaces to
be able to add meta‑data more handily than with bloated comments and
mini‑languages in comments, to allow filtered view, outlining, and other
things, and my favorite one: cross references between sources and
documentations.
This is language neutral, there is no complaints about Ada here ;) Just
that such a standard would be welcome and would not cost too much I
believe.
If you forgive me a bit of out‑of‑topic for an Ada Usenet, here are the
readings I could find on the topic:
[Source Code Files as Structured
Documents](http://www.sdml.info/papers/iwpc02.pdf)
[Towards Portable Source Code Representations Using
XML](http://www.sdml.info/library/Mamas00.pdf)
There was a now abandoned close research area, named Intentional
Programming. But this differs in many points and the above is far less
specific.
--
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Any Ada source XML serialization standard?
2012-04-07 14:54 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
@ 2012-04-09 21:25 ` Manuel Collado
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Manuel Collado @ 2012-04-09 21:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
El 07/04/2012 16:54, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) escribió:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Le Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:01:46 +0200, Peter C. Chapin <PChapin@vtc.vsc.edu> a
> écrit:
>
>> On 2012-04-06 13:54, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
>>
>>> I read about a so called cppML, whose purpose was precisely that, but
>>> for C++. As there use to be a cppML, I naively searched for an adaML or
>>> some sort of that, but failed. By the way, this cppML seems dead, or am
>>> I wrong?
>>
>> I wonder if one could hijack ASIS for this purpose. That is, define an
>> XML representation of Ada source using XML elements with names that
>> correspond to ASIS elements. Such an approach might allow a certain
>> amount of "mindshare" between the two systems. A person familiar with
>> ASIS could easily understand the XML representation or visa-versa.
>
> ASIS adds interpretation, while an XML representation of Ada source should
> not. There are, in the Ada language, some intentional ambiguities, like the
> famous one which allow to write the same way, a function invocation and a
> reference to an array element. It's a long time I did not play with ASIS,
> however if my mind is right, for ASIS, “E (F)” is not same when E is a
> function or an array.
>
> Using the BNF grammars terms as found in the RM, may not always be OK for
> the same reasons (as the terms refers to interpretations), while it seems
> to be the best starting point. If the RM could explicitly point intentional
> ambiguities and provides names for these intentionally ambiguous source
> constructs, this would be an aid.
>
> The purpose is to get ride of formating (would be automatically applied by
> the view depending on user own preferences) and to be able to easily access
> to source as structured data. With the addition of XML namepaces to be able
> to add meta‑data more handily than with bloated comments and mini‑languages
> in comments, to allow filtered view, outlining, and other things, and my
> favorite one: cross references between sources and documentations.
>
> This is language neutral, there is no complaints about Ada here ;) Just
> that such a standard would be welcome and would not cost too much I believe.
>
> If you forgive me a bit of out‑of‑topic for an Ada Usenet, here are the
> readings I could find on the topic:
>
> [Source Code Files as Structured
> Documents](http://www.sdml.info/papers/iwpc02.pdf)
> [Towards Portable Source Code Representations Using
> XML](http://www.sdml.info/library/Mamas00.pdf)
>
> There was a now abandoned close research area, named Intentional
> Programming. But this differs in many points and the above is far less
> specific.
I've worked in the area of representing source code as XML for years.
Please see:
http://lml.ls.fi.upm.es/~mcollado/emu-code/emu-code-other.html
(a bit outdated, but probably still a useful compilation)
IMHO, there is no such thing as "the standard" XML representation of code
for a given programming language. A naive approach would be to mimic the
usual grammar of the language (if there is one). But to be useful, the
chosen representation should take into account its intended usage (code
navigation, automatic transformation, manual editing, etc.)
In some cases, representing the syntax is not enough. Some semantic
information can also be included in the representation. For instance, the
Intentional Programming approach includes also references from each
identifier usage to the identifier definition, so overloaded symbols are
explicitly disambiguated.
Even in the simple code formatting task you mention, some semantic
distinction can be useful. For instance, function_F(x,y,z) and
array_A(x,y,z) could be formatted differently, as well as distinguishing
local and global identifiers with different color by a syntax highlighter
for code browsing purposes.
Hope this helps.
--
Manuel Collado - http://lml.ls.fi.upm.es/~mcollado
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-04-09 21:25 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-04-06 17:54 Any Ada source XML serialization standard? Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
2012-04-06 19:01 ` Peter C. Chapin
2012-04-06 21:41 ` Simon Wright
2012-04-07 14:54 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
2012-04-09 21:25 ` Manuel Collado
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox