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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!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: Vocabulary matter: Component vs Element vs Item
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 21:12:25 +0200
Organization: Ada @ Home
Message-ID: <op.w0ufmzpbule2fv@cardamome>
References: <op.w0sduxdcule2fv@cardamome>
 <1l6m1yt.qd2fq61ydg9trN%csampson@inetworld.net>
 <415580c1-2655-419a-b7dd-bce59d8801e5@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ds8m8HfAx594C0h4s/JFyA.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
User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:16529
Date: 2013-07-26T21:12:25+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Le Fri, 26 Jul 2013 20:29:05 +0200, Adam Beneschan <adambeneschan@aol.co=
m>  =

a =C3=A9crit:

> On Friday, July 26, 2013 10:24:55 AM UTC-7, Charles H. Sampson wrote:
>
>>      As a result, I don't feel competent to comment on any technical
>> issues here, even from a historical perspective. However, I don't see=

>> that "component", "element" and "item" are at all related in plain
>> English.
>
> Looking it up in an (American) English dictionary, www.m-w.com: Both  =

> "component" and "element" seem to mainly refer to a "constituent part"=
  =

> of something else.
Merriam Webster seems to implies the same.

> "Element" sometimes carries the connotation of being the most  =

> rudimentary (or "elementary") part, that can't be broken down into  =

> something else,
UML and software literature seems to agree with this: components are mor=
e  =

big things than elements.

> but not always.
Yes, a famous exception is an XML element.

> (The elements in the periodic table were thought to be just those,  =

> substances that couldn't be broken down into smaller things, until  =

> protons and neutrons and electrons were discovered.)  "Item" has one  =

> similar definition, "a distinct part in an enumeration, account, or  =

> series"; but another relevant definition is "an object of attention,  =

> concern, or interest",
Merriam Webster says there is a now obsolete meaning, where Item was  =

designating a Warning or Hint.


-- =

=E2=80=9CSyntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.=E2=80=9D [1]
=E2=80=9CStructured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.=
=E2=80=9D [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming =E2=80=94 Alan J. =E2=80=94 P. Yale Univers=
ity