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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,ebdc5ed511896a0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: anon@anon.org (anon) Subject: To Georg Bauhaus Reply-To: anon@anon.org (anon) References: <1188809249.040351.100160@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <1188837355.753212.161150@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> <46dcfc35$0$30383$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <46de7f99$0$4536$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:36:01 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.64.222.136 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1188995761 12.64.222.136 (Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:36:01 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:36:01 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:1752 Date: 2007-09-05T12:36:01+00:00 List-Id: 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 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? >>