File: sample.xml

package info (click to toggle)
python-xml 0.4.19981014-1
  • links: PTS
  • area: main
  • in suites: slink
  • size: 2,124 kB
  • ctags: 3,099
  • sloc: ansic: 9,075; python: 8,150; xml: 7,940; makefile: 84; sh: 41
file content (81 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 3,011 bytes parent folder | download | duplicates (2)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE quotations SYSTEM "quotations.dtd">

<quotations>

<quotation>
We will perhaps eventually be writing only small modules which are
identified by name as they are used to build larger ones, so that
devices like indentation, rather than delimiters, might become
feasible for expressing local structure in the source language.

<source>Donald E. Knuth, "Structured Programming with goto
Statements", Computing Surveys, Vol 6 No 4, Dec. 1974</source>
</quotation>

<quotation>
One of the things that makes it interesting, is exactly how much Guido
has managed to exploit that <em>one</em> implementation trick of
'namespaces'.
<source>Steven D. Majewski, 17 Sep 1993
</source>
</quotation>

<quotation>
I don't know a lot about this artificial life stuff
-- but I'm suspicious of anything Newsweek gets goofy about
-- and I suspect its primary use is as another money extraction tool
to be applied by ai labs to the department of defense
(and more power to 'em).
<br/>
Nevertheless in wondering why free software is so good these days
it occured to me that the propagation of free software is one gigantic
artificial life evolution experiment, but the metaphor isn't perfect.
<br/>
Programs are thrown out into the harsh environment, and the bad ones
die. The good ones adapt rapidly and become very robust in short
order.
<br/>
The only problem with the metaphor is that the process isn't random
at all. Python <em>chooses</em> to include tk's genes; Linux decides
to make itself more suitable for symbiosis with X, etcetera. 
<br/>
Free software is artificial life, but better.
<source>Aaron Watters, 29 Sep 1994</source>
</quotation>

<quotation>
It has also been referred to as the "Don Beaudry <em>hack</em>," but
that's a misnomer.  There's nothing hackish about it -- in fact,
it is rather elegant and deep, even though there's something dark
to it.
<source>Guido van Rossum, <cite>Metaclass Programming in Python 1.5</cite></source>
</quotation>

<quotation>
BTW, a member of the ANSI C committee once told me that the only
thing rand is used for in C code is to decide whether to pick up the
axe or throw the dwarf, and if that's true I guess "the typical libc
rand" is adequate for all but the most fanatic of gamers &lt;wink&gt;.  
<source>Tim Peters, 21 June 1997.
</source>
</quotation>

<quotation>
This is not a technical issue so much as a human issue; we 
are limited and so is our time.  (Is this a bug or a feature of time?
Careful; trick question!)
<source>Fred Drake on the Documentation SIG, 9 Sep 1998</source> 
</quotation>

<quotation>
There are also some surprises [in the late Miocene Australia]
some small mammals totally unknown and not obviously related
to any known marsupial (appropriately awarded names such as
<foreign>Thingodonta</foreign> and <foreign>Weirdodonta</foreign>) and a giant
python immortalized as <foreign>Montypythonoides</foreign>.
<source><cite>The Book of Life</cite>, found by Aaron Watters
</source> 
</quotation>

</quotations>