On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 09:53:16PM -0700, Chris Fedde wrote: > On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 23:05:57 -0500 Rocco Caputo wrote: > +------------------ > | On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 01:52:52AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > | > similar as they would have been chosen to describe objects. So I think > | > it should be possible to transform other notations to UML or whatever is > | > selected. There should be consensus on the features, though. > | > | That would be nifty. Matt's original request was for a feature > | consensus so he'd have some guidance. > +------------------ > > [...] > > +------------------ > | Brian Ingerson has asked me to consider using YAML (www.yaml.org) with > | POE. Maybe that can be the common intermediate language that Your > | Favorite ML is translated into before being passed to a common code > | generator. > +------------------ > > I'm confused. You and Torvald seem to be talking "apples and autos" > here. IIRC the UML is a group of notations used to describe object > relationships, timelines, and behaviors of interest to CASE tool > vendors. If I understand what I've read about YAML, it is a data > serialization language similar to WDDX or Data::Dumper. Is there > some relation between these two ideas that is too advanced for my > pedestrian intellect?
You are right. I was talking about modeling languages (Unified ML, http://www.omg.org/uml/). YAML seems to be a markup language, although they state that it isn't :). Torvald
