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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,1605aa6456956e3c X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Received: by 10.68.236.170 with SMTP id uv10mr1758275pbc.4.1333810464440; Sat, 07 Apr 2012 07:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Path: r9ni29319pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?= =?utf-8?Q?=29?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Any Ada source XML serialization standard? Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 16:54:22 +0200 Organization: Ada @ Home Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: SPd8FPXOYGBscv3NWPbtwg.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.62 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable Date: 2012-04-07T16:54:22+02:00 List-Id: Hi Peter, Le Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:01:46 +0200, Peter C. Chapin = a =C3=A9crit: > On 2012-04-06 13:54, Yannick Duch=C3=AAne (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 shou= ld = 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 wit= h = ASIS, however if my mind is right, for ASIS, =E2=80=9CE (F)=E2=80=9D 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 fo= r = the same reasons (as the terms refers to interpretations), while it seem= s = 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=E2=80=91data more handily than with bloated comments= and = mini=E2=80=91languages in comments, to allow filtered view, outlining, a= nd 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=E2=80=91of=E2=80=91topic for an Ada Usene= t, 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. -- = =E2=80=9CSyntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.=E2=80=9D [1] =E2=80=9CStructured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.= =E2=80=9D [1] [1]: Epigrams on Programming =E2=80=94 Alan J. =E2=80=94 P. Yale Univers= ity