Re: Ada Reference Manual 2012 in info format

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Thu, 10 May 2012 17:02:30 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
>> No? You don't need tool to check Ada source legality?
>
> Never used that thing. Ada compilers are validated. In doubt I rather ask
> our language lawyers here.

What's a compiler if not a tool? You just confirmed the assertion.

> BTW, XML is ever worse that just that. The "legality" you are talking  
> about
> is merely stupid syntax checks,

What you are talking about here, is not validity, that's well‑formedness.  
Both well‑formedness and validity are formalized by the XML specification,  
and are different levels and requirements (there are others too), just  
like you have static‑constraint and dynamic‑constraint with Ada.

> necessary because guys were unable to get
> the syntax right.

Sorry, although I enjoy a lot your analyses about Ada, when you talk about  
XML, your analyses are stupids :P

Just forget about XML. If you don't like it, that's probably because you  
never encountered a case where you need it (as much as because your seems  
to be not aware of document authoring matters, as XML is not only used for  
hard‑data serialization) and it as a standard.

Nevertheless, keep in mind that the word “standard” is emphasized a lot  
here ;) And with the word ”standard” comes the words ”interoperability”.

Topic closed for me, I won't argue anymore, not the place for that, just  
that I didn't want to left such assertions without an answer.

-- 
“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