Re: Beginners question: Compound types, how-to?

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

On 03.11.10 09:58, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 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:

Natural grammar, OK...

X drove a dagger into his leg.  -- accusative :-)
Y used the kitchen knife as weapon.  -- instrumental

  procedure Pick_for_Attack
    (Self : in out Person; Instrument : Weapon);

  procedure Fight  -- symmetric relation (now)
    (Self : in out Person: Other : in out Person);


>    procedure Attack (A_Weapon : Weapon);
> 
> or
> 
>    procedure Attack (Weapon : Weapon_Type);

There is no end to constructing contexts, very general
ones and very specific ones, and hardly ever complete.
Some will prefer one or the other. Others will present
an example with generality of wording reversed.  That's
not statistical evidence. I'll prefer convincing evidence
when deciding for or against a set of grammar rules.

But accusative and instrumental are good examples.
Consider verbs and adverbs in some programming languages.