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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,2a687662f09731bb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trnddc08.POSTED!20ae255c!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Anonymous Coward Subject: Re: Ada Quality and Style book discussion References: Message-Id: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 00:03:39 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.44.82.251 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: trnddc08 1132445019 129.44.82.251 (Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:03:39 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:03:39 EST Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6490 Date: 2005-11-20T00:03:39+00:00 List-Id: In article , Simon Wright wrote: > > Huh? The problem with my example was that the programmer had called > something Message_In because he was not thinking from the point of > view of the user of his package. I agree that the first example was problematic, and in part for the same reason you do - because the author was thinking from his own point of view rather than the user. But I'm saying remove the article "_In" and problem solved. I'm not saying the point of view should strictly be shifted to that of the user; which is where we disagree. It should be written with no attachment to either point of view. Neutral and free of articles is my preference, because then a reader has the freedom to mentally insert whatever articles make sense from their point of view. > I didn't have a real problem with To_The_Stream, and I don't see why > you do though personally I would have just said To, as I indicated. To_The_Stream is acceptible, but barely. It's wordy with all those articles. "Target" is more direct, yet short. >> procedure Send (Message : in String; Target : in Stream); >> >> It's not clutsy from the inside or the outside, it's concise (with >> no distracting articles), and it doesn't mislead. It assumes the >> audience/reader knows Ada. If the reader doesn't know basic Ada, >> then the problem is with the reader, not the code. > > I don't see what 'knowing Ada' has to do with it? I added the parameter modes. This would still read as "Message ... in", which could mislead a non-Ada reader to interpret it just like "Message_In" might have been interpretted. But in my version, "in" was part of the language, and the reader is responsible for understanding it.