Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: December 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: do you really want to work on the ~ (was: registry)
Home

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

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Petr Baudis <pasky@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv development list <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: do you really want to work on the ~ (was: registry)
From: Jules Bean <jules@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:55:10 +0000

On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 11:46:43AM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote:
> Dear diary, on Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 08:35:40AM CET, I got a letter, where 
> Jules
> Bean <jules@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> told me, that...

> If you are still talking about easy modifiability, that C-like
> format is easy to modify in probably anything and I seriously can't
> think about anything easier ;) (even XML mode of emacs -
> <noflame>altough I never tried it as I just find emacs itself too
> hard to control for me so I don't have it even installed,
> sorry</noflame>[uh, that xml is not so bad ;]).

Well, XML mode of emacs understands the DTD.  So for example, it would
*know* that only the elements <attack> <defence> and <move> were valid
inside <unit>, or whatever we decided. Key shortcuts can easily create
whole new units, move in and out of nested structures, etc.

>  About that easy verifiability, it's C-like, not C syntax. You won't
> be able to verify it by C compiler probably, but it's really easy to
> make dummy wrapper to your parser to verify the corectness of
> syntax.

But XML would not only validate the syntax (well-formedness) but also
the structure (only foo, bar, and baz are valid inside unit, etc.)

Jules

PS Your lines are too long ;-) Wrap at 72...


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]