Re: Two simple language questions (plural types)

[mfb@mbunix.mitre.org (Michael F Brenner)]

This thread contains a recommendation that I disagree with. It said to
NOT name scalar types plurals. The reason given was so that it would
read better when you create an array. The example given was 
    type color_array is array (positive range <>) of color;

While there can be different opinions as to how to name the array, 
the array type, the range type, and the element type, there can be
not doubt that, in English, this is an array of COLORS (plural). 

Almost every type reads better when declared to be plural. Those things
that are singletons are declared in a manner where the OBJECT is SINGULAR,
and the TYPE is PLURAL, such as:
     color: colors; -- to be read as: color is of type colors

This is particularly critical for the array index range type, since
none of the array sentences will read as in English if those types
are singular (as in POSITIVE above). 

My recommendation, in order for all Ada declarative and imperative
sentences to read as in English (or any other Indo-European 
language, French, German, Dutch, Italian, Greek, Russian, etc.),
is that almost all objects be singular, all array objects be singular,
and all types be plural. This recommendation obviously does not 
apply to Semitic, Hamitic, Japanese, or Chinese languages, where
the concept of plurals is not like the concept in Indo-European 
languages; in those languages plurals are often not even expressed.

Mike Brenner


is to