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!news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada generics From: Georg Bauhaus In-Reply-To: References: <1166710494.869393.108730@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <186qujlcx6rwl.1h6eq4mbdaa5s$.dlg@40tude.net> <1167150212.165097.289010@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com> <1qmdvus6du3xu.1n21tzgev46ia$.dlg@40tude.net> <1167246396.057028.325080@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com> <15jxp8z1iu5fk.1oeihvavjghgg$.dlg@40tude.net> <1167327306.22163.66.camel@localhost> <1on3cinnnckc5.1rxxvjhxs5qzl.dlg@40tude.net> <1167421145.30532.11.camel@localhost> <1167490403.26940.44.camel@localhost> <1a2r4wlgiett6.1w5j3q7696x72$.dlg@40tude.net> <1167732264.661.36.camel@localhost> <78t224mtd234.1e11h379pwu57.dlg@40tude.net> <1167741187.661.50.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Organization: # Message-ID: <1167749126.661.91.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:45:27 +0100 NNTP-Posting-Date: 02 Jan 2007 15:44:59 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: f0da118e.newsspool4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=;@co14V0jMb:i=48;n?Z:`4IUK On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 14:51 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > Come on, why on earth "water" is a descriptive name of water. "Water" is a descriptive name in the context of a program using "water" as an identifier. We rely on readers to be able to give meaning to "water". (Fortunately, we are not forced to write "WATER" all the time.) > I find "=D0=B2=D0=BE=D0=B4=D0=B0" > far more descriptive! (:-)) I wouldn't hesitate to write "=D0=B2=D0=BE=D0=B4=D0=B0" in a Russian only p= rogram. In fact, when I translated UI messages for the Serna XML editor from English into German, it was helpful being able to look into a Russian dictionary. The developers are from Russia, and in a few cases the Russian translation of the UI messages=20 had good hints to the intended meaning of the English phrases. > Natural language words (even pictographs) > describe absolutely nothing but themselves.=20 (How can you be certain of this? :-) > > Programming problems cannot reasonably described in full > > using only formal symbolism. >=20 > So what? It means a programming language should enable its users to choose good names. To me, this means reasonable flexibility in the choice of identifiers. We are not yet used to writing =CF=80 in a geometry program even though it is an obvious choice for all involved. A few decades ago, People weren't expecting to be able to write A :=3D {1, 3 .. 15} when using SETL. They instead had to revert to trigraphs for the braces and such, IIRC. This has changed. So maybe some day Ada programmers will be fine with Greek =CF=80 in geometry programs, and use =CF=89 occasionally, for local variables that have to do with spinning things. > The language treats *any* names > equally. Any application domain meaning of names is outside the language. I don't think application domain names can be chosen properly if you won't let application domains influence language design, including identifier spelling rules (in say 5% of future programs if Randy's estimates will turn out to be true). > >> Simplicity of implementation does not justify doing wrong things! (:-)= ) > >=20 > > Indeed, this is why I like to be able to write identifiers > > that are written correctly, >=20 > Mathematicians use much less descriptive identifies being absolutely free > to use Latin, Greek and Hebrew alphabets. Yet nobody even tried to use fu= ll > words. Why? Mathematicians use full words almost all the time when they explain their reasoning to human readers.=20 echo "Let I =E2=8A=82 N be a finite index set. For all k =E2=88=88 I, P(k).= " | wc 1 15 58 cat | wc for k in I loop assert(P(k)); end loop; 3 8 43 How many math books or papers are there that use a more terse mode of expression? > Yet another "German" rule: "a_b" =3D "ab"? In that spirit, what about > middle-endian integer literals and postfix forms for all function calls? > (:-)) These are not character set and casing issues, and you know it. :-)