Re: Declaration design preference: type or name first

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:57:24 -0500, Logan Shaw
<lshaw-usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>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).

It would be different understandings.  The fact that a word has a
certain set of definitions that are universal, i.e., shared by
all users of a language, does not mean that there cannot be
additional definitions that people make up and use.  

I gather you were reading the quoted phrase as saying that the
only definitions that exist are the universal ones.  That's a
natural interpretation, though not the intended one.  My
apologies for a confusing wording.

That said, I hope you see what the point of the original post
was.  In texts written in natural languages I can read what you
write and you can read what I write because we do share a common
dictionary.  Imagine the awkwardness and difficulty of
communication if everybody had their own dictionary and their own
set of meanings for words; however that is just what we do in
computer programming.  In effect, each program is a do***ent
written in its own private mini-language(s).


 

Richard Harter, cri@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.varinoma.com
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die