Re: Declaration design preference: type or name first

Richard Harter wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:09:07 -0500, Logan Shaw
> <lshaw-usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Richard Harter wrote:
>>> On 1 Nov 2007 14:50:16 GMT, ram@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Stefan Ram)
>>> wrote:
>>>> cri@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Richard Harter) writes:

>>>>> the code.  In natural languages a symbol (word) has the same
>>>>> definition(s) everywhere.

>>>>  Even terms have different meanings, for example, an
>>>>  »object« in Java (JLS3) is different from an »object«
>>>>  in C++ (ISO/IEC 14882:2003(E)).

>>> Did you see the "(s)" after the word "definition"?  

>> Sure.  If you want to stick the subset of natural language
>> where people only use words as defined in the dictionary, that
>> works.  But in the real world, people can and do give new
>> definitions to words based on context.  This is in fact, how
>> the definitions got into the dictionary in the first place:
>> words are constantly being formed and being evolved and being
>> given new meanings in certain contexts,

> Er, I think we all know all of that - it's all very true and not
> much to the point.

My point was that I don't agree with your statement (above) that
"in natural languages a symbol (word) has the same definition(s)
everywhere".  I think there are scopes for definitions of words
in natural language in a similar way to how there are scopes in
computer languages.

To me, my statement and yours can't both be true, but you seem to
be agreeing with my statement and yet not withdrawing your own,
which makes me think you think they both can be true.  And that
makes me think we have different understandings of one statement
or the other (or, I guess, both).

   - Logan