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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,9983e856ed268154
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.66.83.74 with SMTP id o10mr216151pay.33.1345725943361;
        Thu, 23 Aug 2012 05:45:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.88.195 with SMTP id bi3mr286711wib.3.1345725942980;
        Thu, 23 Aug 2012 05:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 a5ni5364pbv.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!yt1no41671709wib.1!news-out.google.com!n2ni275343290win.0!nntp.google.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec?
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:45:58 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <qtic9okggi28$.1uqruxnq6aqu6$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <501bd285$0$6564$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <1qril0ny3eczr$.1vlhpbrjyyb8k.dlg@40tude.net>
 <503375ac$0$6565$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <1vglgit7vnu4l$.2ytljabrhk2.dlg@40tude.net>
 <5033986c$0$6573$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <62h5nifarvom.1myeqdyevhefq.dlg@40tude.net>
 <5033b4d8$0$6571$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <gpcuiu6p58gd$.118wuad9bdmvo$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <5033ff28$0$6185$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>
 <k7637a11gmnm$.1lv7ly66jmka8$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <5034dac1$0$6579$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <gqe8rxff4blh$.118of9mfkr6y8.dlg@40tude.net>
 <50350d35$0$6579$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <1xdzh15anpuc0.1xw8mwmojasjk$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <50354c95$0$6577$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <1sfidfvz480e7$.l49woc2l4lji.dlg@40tude.net>
 <5035f059$0$6580$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <1i9sfhbz3harl$.1ihaky0f5ne8d$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <50361526$0$6577$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-08-23T14:45:58+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:33:57 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 23.08.12 12:13, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> Nobody needs either parsing or guessing in order to exchange structured
>> data.
> 
> Nobody needs either parsing or guessing in order to understand data
> of *known* structure. Which is the point.

Structured data cannot have unknown structure. Furthermore, you already
tried to praise XML for being able to define a structure. Now if the
structure is unknown, then the structure the XML description promotes maps
to what? It is even worse than to inadequately describe something existent.
What XML would do in this case would be outright lie.

But of course, you didn't meant that. You meant a tautology: a description
of an object describes the object (and its structure as well).

> When endpoints lack this
> knowledge and there exists no way of obtaining the knowledge from
> elsewhere, then hints in the data will help.

Nonsense. When an object is transmitted so goes its structure whatever it
be. As such it cannot be unknown to the peer which reconstructs the object
by deserializing it. If the structure were unknown but necessary, the
object could not be deserialized.

But we are running in circles. The capacities of XML for describing
structures of complex objects was already discussed. See
Ada.Containers.Doubly_Linked_Lists.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de