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: 103376,e55245590c829bef
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Beginners question: Compound types, how-to?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <86wroy58ff.fsf@gareth.avalon.lan>
 <iale5p$2f6$1@tornado.tornevall.net> <86pqup5xfy.fsf@gareth.avalon.lan>
 <becbd7a4-89e6-4d81-b7d8-7d18ac75c1f9@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
 <86y69d3rec.fsf@gareth.avalon.lan> <ian4b2$p9h$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
 <82lj5c5ecm.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <iapnmm$p5j$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
 <79ed13b7-4c55-40c4-9f66-e30ed94e5591@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
 <4cd0b0ed$0$6775$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 09:58:19 +0100
Message-ID: <18xidnow90tjo$.5sykmte8t7re$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 03 Nov 2010 09:58:19 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3328dd81.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=;b7Cg^V0J_f:i=48;n?Z:`McF=Q^Z^V3h4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOk9miZagT93Ao[6LHn;2LCVn7enW;^6ZC`d\`mfM[68DCcV;WB=9fo[ij
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:16126
Date: 2010-11-03T09:58:19+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 01:46:37 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> Sill, a different grammar(!) might lead to better visual
> distinction. (Which words are types' names etc.)
> A grammatical approach seems a lot better to me than
> injecting a mechanical sublanguage into identifiers!!!

Natural grammar use article and/or inflexion to separate instances and
groups. So:

   procedure Attack (A_Weapon : Weapon);

or

   procedure Attack (Weapon : Weapon_Type);

is more or less how natural languages handle this.

But in a programming language both approaches look somewhat bad.

And so far no multi-methods were considered. But if we did:

   procedure Parry (My_Weapon : Weapon; His_Weapon : Weapon);

Or, maybe, would you introduce grammatical cases? (:-))

   procedure Parry (
      (*instrumental case*) Weapon : Weapon;
      (*accusative case*) Weapon : Weapon );

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de