[Freeciv-Dev] Re: do you really want to work on the ~ (was: registry)

[Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 08:30:15PM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 08:25:23PM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote:
> > I think we don't need XML at all. It at least looks much less readable and
> > comfortablee for me. I would be completely happy with C-like ruleset syntax 
> > -
> > i.e.:
> > 
> > building {
> >   id = "Airport";
> >   name = _("Airport");
> >   tech_req = "Radio";
> >   effect {
> >     type = "Unit_Veteran";
> >     range = "City";
> >     aff_unit = "Air";
> >   }
> >   effect {
> >     type = "Airlift";
> >     range = "City";
> >   }
> >   helptext = _("Blablabla\
> > blabla\n\nbla\
> > blah!");
> > }
> 
> That is neater.  XML is more verbose, certainly.
> 
> > It would be IMHO much cleaner than current one, and actually not so much
> > different. As a parser, I don't see anything particulary wrong on 
> > flex+bison.
> > Easy to use, portable, effecient.
> 
> I don't recommend it.  

> Writing your own parser is error-prone

Not with flex+bison.

> (unless
> you feel like the challenge). Much nicer to use a library which loads
> a format for you.  XML gives you that, and even some level of
> validation.
> 

> Alternatively, there may be standardised forms of the above. Doesn't
> the stuff libproplist uses look a bit like that?

I couldn't find an online docu in the first 30 matches of google. This
doesn't speak for the library.

> OTOH, the thing about XMl is there exist nice editors for it. And nice 
> modes for popular editors. And it's easy to filter and
> transform. (Automatically generated beautful LaTeX format
> documentation from your ruleset file?)
> 
> I would argue that the *only* bad thing about XML is its excessive
> verboseness when viewed by hand.  It has technical and pragmatic
> advantages.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1