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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c733905936c6b6b0
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.202.37 with SMTP id kf5mr10199258pbc.7.1334596816884;
        Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:20:16 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 r9ni63531pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!volia.net!news2.volia.net!feed-A.news.volia.net!takemy.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 19:19:54 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: [OT] interesting reason why a language is considered good
References: <jme7r1$eo7$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <8603135.951.1334573001928.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbdy9>
 <4f8c06f5$0$7617$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <14veb9cpamoda.ck9fbsd5m9m$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4f8c3431$0$7627$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <szik5e8e6n4m$.dgyqh41b6k6b$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4f8c52b2$0$7627$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
In-Reply-To: <4f8c52b2$0$7627$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Message-ID: <4f8c54bb$0$7629$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Apr 2012 19:19:55 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 059e156f.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=DJe8^lMC;_hm7>ihJR;B_cic==]BZ:afn4Fo<]lROoRa<`=YMgDjhgb8V6?4Fa=5gknc\616M64>jLh>_cHTX3jmad<`cQYO97g
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-04-16T19:19:55+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 16.04.12 19:11, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> What counts is understandability of a program, which I think
> is not to be had from some reduction to an ad-hoc rules base on
> a formalism made for a different purpose (C(identifier)).

(Monday...) What counts is understandability of a program, which I think
is not to be had from some reduction to a formalism made for a different
purpose, namely (C(identifier)).