To Georg Bauhaus

[anon@anon.org (anon)]

When you answer a post you direct your answers and your comments to 
the original poster or the previous poster only.  And since the original 
poster in this case, used the word 'Generic' that means that if I change 
the word it might confuse her.  Just because others may listen in does 
not change the fact that I was talking to the original or previous poster. 
You use the language and semantics that the original or previous poster 
should know. That way they understand which is the reason the answer 
was given. Others may listen in may or may not like the answer given 
or even understand the answer, but that's their problem. Because the 
answer was not given for them, its for the original or previous poster. 

Also that English for you!  We use the same word to mean many things 
instead of creating a new words.  Plus, like all of us we use the 
semantics and slang that we know and sometime it can be confusing
to others, but to keep the peace we must all learn to get over that. 

And only reading the last sets of posts of a thread one is more 
likely to misunderstand any and all parts of the thread. To help 
keep from misunderstanding someone, you first need to find the 
original poster and read what they stated. 

I knew what she meant and wanted from her statement, but in 
reading other post I was not sure they did.

I think most posters just Keyed on the word 'Generic' and did 
not understand her complete question, so they tried to send her to 
the LRM chapter 12, that deals with "Generic Units". And the 
misunderstanding is not the original poster fault.  You will see 
this if you follow the complete thread. She even lets people know 
that it had nothing to do with Ada's "Generic Units".


Language misunderstanding can and will happen from time to time we just 
have to deal with it.  That's the way the world works and its not going to 
change anytime soon.



In <46de7f99$0$4536$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>, Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus.rm.tsoh@maps.futureapps.de> writes:
>anon wrote:
>> The English language has many different definitions of the word 'generic', 
>> none of them deal with Ada.  Which can cause confusion when trying to 
>> answer someone question, if you do not know the semantics of the word 
>> 'generic' or the phase 'generic statement'.
>
>Yes, obviously. But is it the best way to remove misunderstandings
>by again employing a misleading meaning of "generic" as in
>"generic statement" for "access to procedure" a.k.a. procedure
>pointer? (I'm saying this because communicating anything becomes
>O(terrible(n)), time consuming, entails anger and cost because
>misunderstandings can lead to work in the wrong direction etc.
>Words are then overloaded in a piece of information that should
>be specific, i.e., not overloaded. I'm not denying the
>usefulness of understanding what the intended meaning was,
>only that it should not be adopted.)
>
>
>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -- The Probability the answer that she ask for:                             --
>>>> --                                                                          --
>>>> --   type proc_access is access procedure ; -- is the generic statement     --
>>>> --                                          -- that she needed.             --
>>> I'm not sure I understand "generic statement" here.
>>> Proc_Access looks like an access to subprogram type.
>>> What is a generic statement?
>>