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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,8ea33c39efc56ac3 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.news-service.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: sharp =?UTF-8?B?w58gYW5kIHNzIGluIEFkYSBrZXl3b3JkcyBsaWtlIEFD?= =?UTF-8?B?IENFU1M=?= Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:25:43 +0200 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: <179ii830sh36v.dto72qcmif76.dlg@40tude.net> References: <665628584340145751.161513rm-host.bauhaus-maps.arcor.de@news.arcor.de> <1tgwf2ey7q1qz.hpcw6dmx2aj2$.dlg@40tude.net> <4e96d5f0$0$6541$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:21413 Date: 2011-10-13T15:25:43+02:00 List-Id: On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:13:36 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > On 13.10.11 10:10, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >> How is "acceβ" worse than "acceß"? > > The first identifier mixes two different "alphabets"; > The second identifier uses variant spelling. > The second identifier can be changed without debate. > This is how "acceβ" worse than "acceß". Not convincing. It refers to "alphabets" and "spellings". Why should anybody care about them? > The first identifier, mixing two "alphabets", is > like a literal mixing Roman numerals and Arabic numerals > to form a single numeric literal: > > Some_Year : constant := MCD92; > > Yeah, that's fun. And there are no Chinese digits > in it, so Europeans and Americans will likely recognize the > intent. Motor control device, the model of the year 1992? > But otherwise? What's the point when mixing two > numeric alphabets? 9 and 2 are not letters. What is the point to mix them at all? E.g. in "I2"? I don't care if I2 is improperly spelt in any natural language. >>>> type Acceß_Type is access Integer; >>>> type Access_Type is access String; >>> >>> I'd prefer them to be the same in this particular >>> case, since the Swiss model (which is without ß) >>> is working. >> >> What is the reason for them to be same? > > "the Swiss model (which is without ß) is working." I bet 90% of Ada users could not care less. >> How do you know in which alphabet is "Mass"? Why should it conflict with >> "Maß" for some French programmer? > > The identifiers shouldn't be in conflict, but Ada > makes them be in conflict, Randy has stated one reason. > > I can think of two reasons for ss = ß but I /= І: > > 1) I /= І, since they are from "alphabets" that real people > think are different. Show me one, who thinks they are different without hexadecimal editor. > To make the example less artificial, > Let Αδα /= Ada. Put your projects at risk and hire > programmers who would write Aδα (A["03B4"]["03B1"]). > The compiler will help you finding them out. If some nonsensical language rules put projects at risk, then, maybe, there is something wrong with these rules? > 2) ss = ß because real people think and act as though > they are the same, and, importantly, more so (note > the non-binary, comparative phrase) WRT ss = ß than > WRT ä = ae, since absence of ä is considered a computer > thingy, but equivalence of ss and ß is well established > with or without computer. It is a different issue. Real people also think that sch=sh, kn=n (at the beginning of the word), oo=u, ee=i and ad infinitum. > "Mass" has four Latin characters, "Maß" has three, So why are they equivalent? >> If "Latin" does not mean Latin, then you need yet another nonsensical rule >> to redefine it. > > "Latin" is here meant to refer to the general thing. > "Latin characters used in Europe" is pretty clear, Does this include Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria? > and no one will sue you if you include ä or ł. That must the reason? No one could if I exclude them and ß too. > Declaring simple unions of sections from Unicode is easy, > and consistent. Again, what is the rationale? It is quite easy to jump out of the 10th floor window. There result will be very consistent too. Why should anybody do this? >> Who are these people? > > The people who influence standards. Sure, who would care about users of the standards... (:-)) >>> If a word looks like a mix of Cyrillic characters, >> >> You cannot see characters, you do glyphs. > > That's techno-speak again, but programmers see characters > if you ask them. Nope, it is a physiological fact that people see glyphs. >> You cannot >> safely recognize alphabet looking at a single word. > > I am looking at programs, not at single words. Does this mean that a program may not use several alphabets? Great, the package Ada.Numerics is illegal. I always knew it! >>> A programmer >>> seeing Cyrillic characters will, on average, be >>> right in assuming that he is seeing some >>> identifier written in some Slavic language. >> >> Program legality based on statistic analysis? That must be a lot of fun! > > We employ tons of statistics when reading text. This has nothing to do with the validity of such texts. I don't care about Swiss model, I do about separate compilation. I don't want the legality of components (tested, verified, validated) be randomly dependent on other parts by mere placing them into one project. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de