Re: ANN: Ada source code decorator

[Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@acm.org>]

Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes:

> Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@acm.org> writes:
>
>> Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes:
>>
>>> Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@acm.org> writes:
>
>> You are arguing that the particular structure defined in the ASIS spec
>> is not one you would use for your particular application. 
>>
>> That is certainly your choice. Everyone else will also have a
>> particular choice; probably different. I suspect the choice of
>> structure depends heavily on the algorithm you want to implement.
>
> It would be completely unnatural in XML to represent the concept of a
> name with components as a nested structure. For a start, the XPath
> expressions involved will be unmanageable.

Hmm. Taken purely at face value, that tells me that XML is not a
suitable representation for Ada :).

But if there are a few standard transformations from the ASIS
structure to the XML structure, that would be ok.

> For info, the output from
>
>    generic
>    package Basis is
>       type Base is abstract tagged private;
>       procedure Op (B : Base) is abstract;
>    private
>       type Base is abstract tagged record
>          V : Boolean;
>       end record;
>    end Basis;
>
> was
>
>    <asis>
>    <generic_package_declaration>
>    <defining_identifier>Basis</defining_identifier>
>    <private_type_declaration kind="abstract_private_trait">
>    <defining_identifier>Base</defining_identifier>
>    <tagged_private_type_definition kind="abstract_private_trait">
>    </tagged_private_type_definition>
>    </private_type_declaration>
>    <procedure_declaration kind="abstract_trait">
>    <defining_identifier>Op</defining_identifier>
>    <parameter_specification kind="ordinary_trait"
>    mode="default_in_mode">
>    <defining_identifier>B</defining_identifier>
>    <identifier>Base</identifier>
>    </parameter_specification>
>    </procedure_declaration>
>    <ordinary_type_declaration>
>    <defining_identifier>Base</defining_identifier>
>    <type_definition>
>    <tagged_record_type_definition kind="abstract_trait">
>    </tagged_record_type_definition>
>    <record_definition>
>    <component_declaration>
>    <defining_identifier>V</defining_identifier>
>    <component_definition kind="ordinary_trait" size="8">
>    <subtype_indication>
>    <identifier>Boolean</identifier>
>    </subtype_indication>
>    </component_definition>
>    </component_declaration>
>    </record_definition>
>    </type_definition>
>    </ordinary_type_declaration>
>    </generic_package_declaration>
>    </asis>
>
> which probably makes more sense to you than to me. 

There seems to be a lot missing. Remember that I have never used XML
in an application, but my impression was that it's supposed to be a
self-documenting format. So, for example, I would expect the various
identifiers to be labeled more specifically; "variable_identifier",
"type_identifier". Or have names that match the ASIS query that
returned them.

I guess if there was an XML grammar to go along with this, that would
specify that information.

> I can get some of it, of course, but -- for example -- what other
> sorts of traits are there and what do they actually mean?

That does require a better ASIS manual.

This looks like a good start on an XML tool for Ada; I'll keep it in
mind if I ever start using XML :).

-- 
-- Stephe