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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,473e6b129c2f30cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.vmunix.org!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!mutlu.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: Avatox 1.0 is now available
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 13:21:27 +0100
Organization: Pushface
Message-ID: <m23bb1s01k.fsf@grendel.local>
References: <JaPEg.6886$Qf.5686@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <m2odudyfdm.fsf@grendel.local>
 <OA6Hg.840$bM.366@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <m264giacw2.fsf@grendel.local>
 <XfSdncT-efwBxGLZnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@megapath.net>
 <m2u03jquay.fsf@grendel.local>
 <KfOdnRXjCaddSp3YnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@megapath.net>
 <45018e97$0$17399$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <45027b40@news.upm.es>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1157804488 4061 62.49.19.209 (9 Sep 2006 12:21:28
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 12:21:28 +0000 (UTC)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:o0/cgCL8K/AP+sR5WnqxQkvoQrA=
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (darwin)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6533
Date: 2006-09-09T13:21:27+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Manuel Collado <m.collado@fi.upm.es> writes:

> What puzzles me is that the XML structure (nesting) doesn't follows
> the lexical Ada source structure. Example from avatox.adb -->
> avatox.adb.xml:
>
> <A_CLAUSE ... startLine="29" endLine="29" startCol="1" endCol="29">
>   <A_WITH_CLAUSE ... startLine="29" endLine="29" startCol="1" endCol="29"/>
>   <AN_EXPRESSION ... startLine="29" endLine="29" startCol="6" endCol="28">
>     <A_SELECTED_COMPONENT ... startLine="29" endLine="29" startCol="6"
> endCol="28"/>
>     <AN_EXPRESSION ... startLine="29" endLine="29" startCol="6" endCol="19">
>       ....
>
> You can see that <A_WITH_CLAUSE> from (29,1) to (29,29) lexically
> contains <AN_EXPRESSION> from (29,6) to (29,28). But the latest is not
> nested inside the former. Instead, it appears as a sibling of it.

Marc and I disagree on this one. My approach in asis2xml is to have

    <context_clauses>
      <with_clause>
        <selected_component>
          <selected_component>
            <identifier>Ada</identifier>
            <identifier>Characters</identifier>
          </selected_component>
          <identifier>Handling</identifier>
        </selected_component>
      </with_clause>

but it would be just as sensible to have

    <clause kind="with_clause">

The XPATH expressions aren't that different:

   A_CLAUSE[A_WITH_CLAUSE]
   with_clause
   clause[@kind='with_clause']

It depends what would be most useful. As an example of where user
input would be good, what about that <selected_component> structure,
which does follow the lexical structure of the language, but imagine
the query to find all withs of Ada.Characters.Handling!