Re: Canonical format for header files (was... who cares?)
From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 02/20/04
- Next message: Frank Kotler: "Re: Tru Calling"
- Previous message: Robert Redelmeier: "Re: Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this EULA."
- In reply to: arargh402NOSPAM_at_NOW.AT.arargh.com: "Re: Canonical format for header files (was... who cares?)"
- Next in thread: arargh402NOSPAM_at_NOW.AT.arargh.com: "Re: Canonical format for header files (was... who cares?)"
- Reply: arargh402NOSPAM_at_NOW.AT.arargh.com: "Re: Canonical format for header files (was... who cares?)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 19:21:21 -0000
Aaargh wrote:
> Randy wrote:
> <snip>
> >That's why an intermediate canonical format is such a good idea.
> >You keep as much semantic information as possible. Assemblers
> >that can't use it, ignore it. Those that can use it, do.
>
> What more information would you want to have beyond what's already
in
> the C header? From what I can see, a C header already has more info
> than either MASM or NASM can use.
"Canonical form" doesn't have any "more information" than the C file,
in that sense...the point is that it has the same information _but in
a "neutral" form_...
Okay, let's try to get the point across by looking at the same idea in
a different context...changing what you asked into this different
context:
Beth: "We could convert the Word document to use a 'canonical form' of
a plain ASCII text file - with special 'tags' mark-up - for transfer
across the internet...then web browsers - able to read 'canonical
format' - can 'convert' this - let's call it HTML - text to appear on
all the different machines!"
Aaargh: "What more information would you want to have beyond what's
already in the Word document? From what I can see, a Word document
already has more info than an Apple propietary file can use. Just send
Word documents around with FTP. Don't bother with this 'world wide
web' nonsense, as text files don't contain any more information than
the original Word document."
Kind of getting the idea yet? It's not that "canonical form" has "more
information" but that it has the information in a _neutral_ form
(actually, if we do go with XML then the HTML example is actually
pretty close to the mark ;)...and then when the information is "in
HTML" (canonical form), so to speak, then all the "endian" differences
(syntax differences) between different machines (different programming
languages) on the Internet doesn't matter anymore...
Okay, the world wide web isn't a perfect analogy, I confess...but it
might help to get the rough idea of what "canonical form" is all
about...it's not about any "more" or "less" information, it's about
having that _semantical_ information in a "syntax neutral" form...then
instead of writing a "Word document" web browser, a "PDF file" web
browser and so on for every different file format and different
machine on the internet...you just write a HTML web browser...
As some HTML book I read once phrased it: "HTML is the Esparanto of
the WWW"...this "canonical form" is like "include file
Esparanto"...so, rather than filling the UN with hundreds of different
interpreters (English -> French, English -> German, French ->
Japanese, Russian -> Chinese, Chinese -> English, Japanese -> German,
etc. ;)...you can have everyone learn the "neutral" Esparanto language
and just talk to each other in that language...
Mind you, "Esparanto" ultimately failed to do what it was intended to
do...because, though a great idea in theory, no-one could be bothered
to actually learn it and use it in practice...let's Hope this isn't
history repeating itself, eh?
Beth ;)
- Next message: Frank Kotler: "Re: Tru Calling"
- Previous message: Robert Redelmeier: "Re: Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this EULA."
- In reply to: arargh402NOSPAM_at_NOW.AT.arargh.com: "Re: Canonical format for header files (was... who cares?)"
- Next in thread: arargh402NOSPAM_at_NOW.AT.arargh.com: "Re: Canonical format for header files (was... who cares?)"
- Reply: arargh402NOSPAM_at_NOW.AT.arargh.com: "Re: Canonical format for header files (was... who cares?)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|