From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a84eaf8fb2470909
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!130.59.10.21.MISMATCH!kanaga.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.in2p3.fr!in2p3.fr!proxad.net!proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada generics
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@arcor.de>
In-Reply-To: <1a2r4wlgiett6.1w5j3q7696x72$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <1166710494.869393.108730@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
	 <17fe4xfogg7p5.1dcyc5nyc2gsl.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <1166805696.291429.239590@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>
	 <wvsqamnzgasf.gfemd82fzfpz$.dlg@40tude.net> <DFQjh.1222$oo4.1118@trndny09>
	 <186qujlcx6rwl.1h6eq4mbdaa5s$.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <q__jh.5046$6Z5.3245@trndny01>
	 <awny47urt66k$.1vuw1blk1ccth$.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <1167150212.165097.289010@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>
	 <1qmdvus6du3xu.1n21tzgev46ia$.dlg@40tude.net> <oekkh.5076$6f4.450@trndny08>
	 <lbkjzskf2pv3$.b28bwviakyyb$.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <1167246396.057028.325080@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>
	 <15jxp8z1iu5fk.1oeihvavjghgg$.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <1167327306.22163.66.camel@localhost>
	 <1on3cinnnckc5.1rxxvjhxs5qzl.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <1167421145.30532.11.camel@localhost>
	 <uatj6qmz9ewl.jtzbkhivhvfu$.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <1167490403.26940.44.camel@localhost>
	 <1a2r4wlgiett6.1w5j3q7696x72$.dlg@40tude.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Organization: #
Message-ID: <1167732264.661.36.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 11:04:24 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Date: 02 Jan 2007 11:03:58 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 7839a106.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=;VAk\QA:I`P[7Non7UCi8UA9EHlD;3YcR4Fo<]lROoRQFl8W>\BH3YRB@^ic`?biEYN[W<lHX`=BT\6BhD5G6\i\4\HoWXkFcB]
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8053
Date: 2007-01-02T11:03:58+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 14:00 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> > Should there be a ruling about Finalisation versus
> > Finalization?
>=20
> No, and for exactly same reason why there should also be no ruling that s=
s
> =3D =C3=9F.

Should we deny problem domain facts just so that we have very
simple rules for parsers? Where German is written, there is a
simple rule: For writing "=C3=9F" in upper case, use "SS".
That's not too hard a challenge to computer science in my view,
but I'll leave that to psychologists to answer when it comes
to the views of actual computer scientists. :-)

You could deny the freedom to write following very normal and
fairly simple writing rules to Ada users in Germany of course.=20