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

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Vasiliy Molostov" <molostoff@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:op.wi113hf6ka8ora@aspire.local...
Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com> ?????(?) ? ????? ?????? Wed, 15 Aug
2012 02:16:10 +0400:

> "Vasiliy Molostov" <molostoff@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:op.wi0fliuoka8ora@aspire.local...
>> Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com> ?????(?) ? ????? ?????? Tue, 14

>> about hosts without decent amounts of memory anymore, but redesigning
>> everything to use text files -- which still should never be modified by a
>> human -- and making it a lot slower in the process -- doesn't really make
>> much sense.

>The goal perhaps can be not an efficiency on tiny memory host, but 
>interface to a rich xml toolset that can
>be used by a customer to extract project related data in a manner much 
>simper than asis related stuff. Suppose this xml is a form (subclass)
>of xmi files capable to be read by modern uml modelling tools - ? a 
>customer has an ability to get and control such data
>in a modelling tool directly, whose for now have a bunch of "deployment" 
>abstractions. from some point of view this capability is obvious.

Maybe, but it all sounds like a fantasy to me. (Much about XML sounds like 
pure fantasy to me.)

>And why you have assumed that old code should be removed, you dont like it?

Maintaining two ways to do the same thing is the ultimate in headaches --  
you get to fix all bugs twice. For files not intended for use beyond the 
compilation system, it doesn't make much sense to maintain more than one 
version. (We don't attempt to keep any sort of compatibility on these files 
now between different compiler versions.)

One could imagine having tools to extract information from the project files 
in some other format, but I doubt that we'd change the format a lot. (And 
such tools would require customer demand, obviously.)

                 Randy.