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!news4.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!newsspool3.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> <1167749126.661.91.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Organization: # Message-ID: <1167836153.6124.37.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 15:55:54 +0100 NNTP-Posting-Date: 03 Jan 2007 15:55:09 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: 58e18a65.newsspool3.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=E8RRMMm2WMC=8m7nZkdN^@McF=Q^Z^V3H4Fo<]lROoRAgUcjd<3m<;B5JX?Rh3eMbJ=kbmW`a1fGGC`2T@AUZfCK]K;PL]aPe=K X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8063 Date: 2007-01-03T15:55:09+01:00 List-Id: On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 11:10 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:45:27 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote: >=20 > > On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 14:51 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >=20 > >> I find "=D0=B2=D0=BE=D0=B4=D0=B0" far more descriptive! (:-)) > >=20 > > I wouldn't hesitate to write "=D0=B2=D0=BE=D0=B4=D0=B0" in a Russian on= ly program. >=20 > Ah, but then you are in a big trouble, because "=D0=B2=D0=BE=D0=B4=D0=B0"= , "=D0=B2=D0=BE=D0=B4=D0=B5", "=D0=B2=D0=BE=D0=B4=D0=BE=D0=B9", > "=D0=B2=D0=BE=D0=B4=D1=8B", "=D0=B2=D0=BE=D0=B4=D0=B0=D0=BC=D0=B8", "=D0= =B2=D0=BE=D0=B4=D0=B0=D1=85" would all be equivalent in terms of what they > describe, i.e. "water", "lack of content", "confusion making", "being > ignorant", "alcohol drink", "time passed", "equivalence", "being down"? > Should Ada compilers learn Russian inflection rules? Declination etc. can be overcome by object oriented spelling. Always use the nominative, and have ":=3D" etc. indicate the other cases. :-) As for ambiguity, English is full of it, too. "Springs" has at least three different meanings I can think of. The plural is actually used in one package naming idiom (package - plural, type - singular). So if you have an ASCII 7bit named Springs package, what's in it? > The idea that programs should look like COBOL is just wrong. Having looked at Cobol from time to time, I don't agree. I find it neither verbose nor unclear. (Fortran >=3D 95 uses far more words in some cases.) > >> Natural language words (even pictographs) > >> describe absolutely nothing but themselves.=20 > >=20 > > (How can you be certain of this? :-) >=20 > As a proof consider a human being who does not know written Russian. So to a Russian, a Russian language word describes something. Right? > And run into mess. Can you tell me what is what without resorting to a > binary editor in the following: >=20 > =D0=9A, K, =CE=9A, =D2=9A Same as 1 and l, O and 0, nothing new here. BTW, I don't need a binary editor for distinguishing similar shapes. An editor that informs about its characters is enough. (This character thing on the screen should be an object, anyway.) > How are you support identifiers > like "man-eating," (not to be mixed with "man eating")? Like before: identifiers of a formal language still permit adding clarity. Man_Eating_Activity, or Man_Eater, plus comments, etc. whatever fits best.=20 > > Mathematicians use full words almost all the time when they > > explain their reasoning to human readers.=20 > >=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 >=20 > Huh, none of these words is an *identifier*! They just don't use > descriptive identifiers, neither for free variables, nor for functions. I was referring the the "uncompiled math source code" and its use of full words in math declarations, definitions, proofs and so on. Which also include "For all". Doesn't "Let I =E2=8A=82 N be ..." look quite similar to "declare subtype I is N ..."? OTOH, there is one more argument in favor of =CF=80 and other symbols: mathematicians will feel at home. > > These are not character set and casing issues, and you know it. :-) >=20 > But ss =3D =C3=9F wasn't either! I think it has all to do with permitted character sets in Ada 2005 and the case insensitivity rules.=20 > BTW, nobody answered if "=D1=96f" and "=D0=B0ccess" were legal Ada 2005 i= dentifiers. > Are they? Randy pointed you to the answer in the manual I think; the AARM specifically talks about these words. Or are you saying the RM doesn't answer this question?