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.wjezxbvkka8ora@aspire.local...
Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com> ?????(?) ? ????? ?????? Wed, 22 Aug
2012 03:11:46 +0400:

>> ...which is probably why "modern" computing is unmitigated rubbish. 
>> Hardly
>> anything that has happened since the 1990s is an improvement - most of 
>> it is
>> dubious eye candy while simulateously providing multiple new ways to lose
>> your identity and ultimately freedom. Bah humbug.
>>
>>                                           Randy.
>
>:)
>
>The result is more important than identity, and I sure that this one (an 
>identity) is not correlated with these utility things.

I'd like to respond to this, but I can't figure out what it means. I was 
talking about the fact that behind all of that eye candy are systems that 
designed to invade your privacy and lose your identity (that is, identity 
theft), and the inevitable reaction to it is going to remove the last chance 
at any freedom. Prepare to be enslaved!

>And some utility things are standard ones (ISO_20022 for example) for now.

What utilities have to do with eye candy, privacy, and freedom, beyond my 
ability to figure out.

>Ada in old days had the same face for hard c/c++ people, btw.

Face? We're talking about facts, not "faces". If the facts were different, 
the conclusion would be different. I can certainly see reasons why people 
might want to use XML in program-to-program communication, but it only makes 
sense when the programs are created by different entities. (And I've never 
believed in that as a successful model of anything.)

                                   Randy.