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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2078dddcdcd8d83
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "John G. Volan" <johnvolan@sprintmail.com>
Subject: Re: Warning: Religious naming convention discussion :-) [was: assign
 help!!]
Date: 1997/05/12
Message-ID: <3377AF0E.3779@sprintmail.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 241360284
References: <5kjvcv$evt@news.cis.nctu.edu.tw> <5kn8ko$jcc@top.mitre.org>
 <1997May7.201035.2439@nosc.mil> <33727EEA.2092@sprintmail.com>
 <337788B6.193D@this.message>
Reply-To: johnvolan@sprintmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) wrote:
> 
> > context and point of view. It may take a lot of effort and hours spent
> > poring over Roget's Thesaurus hunting for synonyms, and then more
> 
> I can not remember ever in ten years of Ada work having to spend hours
> poring over a thesaurus!  (But congratulations for knowing the
> difference between "poring" and "pouring")
> 
> > agonized hours deciding  which synonym is more "general" ....
> 
> Nor have I ever done this.

Hyperbole!  It's neat-o!  Amaze your friends!  :-) :-)

Seriously, though: I exaggerated for rhetorical effect, my bad. 
Actually, I only engaged in the Thesaurus exercise _once_, while a
student.  Got old _really_ fast, as you can imagine.  I latched onto the
very first alternative to the synonym scheme that I could find (I think
it was Booch's style).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet.Usenet.Put_Signature 
  (Name => "John G. Volan",  Home_Email => "johnvolan@sprintmail.com",
   Slogan => "Ada95: The World's *FIRST* International-Standard OOPL",
   Disclaimer => "These opinions were never defined, so using them " & 
     "would be erroneous...or is that just nondeterministic now? :-) ");
------------------------------------------------------------------------