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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,e55245590c829bef
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!94.75.214.39.MISMATCH!aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?=
 =?utf-8?Q?=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Beginners question: Compound types, how-to?
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 02:59:20 +0100
Organization: Ada @ Home
Message-ID: <op.vlkns6zdule2fv@garhos>
References: <86wroy58ff.fsf@gareth.avalon.lan>
 <iale5p$2f6$1@tornado.tornevall.net> <86pqup5xfy.fsf@gareth.avalon.lan>
 <becbd7a4-89e6-4d81-b7d8-7d18ac75c1f9@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
 <86y69d3rec.fsf@gareth.avalon.lan> <ian4b2$p9h$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
 <82lj5c5ecm.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <iapnmm$p5j$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
 <79ed13b7-4c55-40c4-9f66-e30ed94e5591@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
 <4cd0b0ed$0$6775$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gPTBNfhtfsEpv8wDIvwlLw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.63 (Win32)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15154
Date: 2010-11-03T02:59:20+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Le Wed, 03 Nov 2010 01:46:37 +0100, Georg Bauhaus  =

<rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de> a =C3=A9crit:
> Sill, a different grammar(!) might lead to better visual
> distinction. (Which words are types' names etc.)
> A grammatical approach seems a lot better to me than
> injecting a mechanical sublanguage into identifiers!!!
There is exactly *no* grammatical approach to this. This is the core of =
 =

the rationals I gave yesterday (or the day before).

If such an approach was there in natural languages, I would be glad to u=
se  =

it; I've never felt the need to reinvent the plural for computer languag=
es  =

(except when that plural is unluckily invariable, and when that occurs, =
I  =

feel free to play a bit and do some dirty things with grammar, especiall=
y  =

with English and its never-plural adjectives)

-- =

Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c=E2=80=99es=
t pas pour  =

les chiens.