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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2afac1a4161c7f35 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Two simple language questions (plural types) Date: 1998/01/11 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 315077559 References: <68uq34$7tk@tomquartz.niestu.com> <697p89$b5j@top.mitre.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: 884563334 18020 bpr 206.184.139.132 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-01-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 10 Jan 1998, Michael F Brenner wrote: > 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. Well, that's your opinion, and I don't share it. I really don't think I'd use that convention at all, and I don't find it intuitive. For types, I use either an "_Type" or "_T" suffix, and if I have an access type "_PT". This is obviously a matter of taste, GNAT code does not use suffixes to distinguish types (though I've seen "_Ptr" in there), so I doubt that specious analogies with natural language are helpful. > 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. OK, I'll bite. My Hebrew is quite rusty, but I'm pretty sure that plurals are often expressed, and the concept is the same as in English (e.g. cherub, cherubim). I'm also pretty sure Arabic is similar, though it has a "dual" form when the number of objects is two. So what are you talking about? -- Brian