[Gllug] Perl, the dogs nadgers?

[David Freeman]

 --- Nix <nix at esperi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, David
Freeman yowled:
> >  --- Dean S Wilson <dean.wilson3 at virgin.net> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> PS Just to avoid the whole English as a coding language stuff:
> >> Time flies like a arrow.
> >> Fruit flies like a banana.
> 
> Yes, that's called `ambiguity'. English is full of it, and there's
> nothing at all stopping programming languages from using it too.

I think not, I think the ' comes in here some where, but I never paid
attanetion in english so I can't say where.

> (In general, they don't, because parsers that can handle
> context-sensitive grammars are a total nightmare to write. I've
> written
> one that does part of the job for the specific case of a very limited
> subset of English, and it was horrible to do.)

very true, hence speach recognition for control being crap.
 
> > Time is an object which has the property of fly which is being
> > inherited from the object arrow so they both operate in a similiar
> > manner.
> 
> Really? So `time' isa arrow?

no, it merely gets the proerty flies from arrow, where arrow gets it is
irrelivent.
 
> Whatever a `property' is, this makes no sense. `Fly' is not a
> property,
> in one sentence it's a verb, in another it's a noun; the parse trees
> for
> these sentences are quite different. You can't model them both with
> the
> same code because they're completely different. The word `flies' in
> one
> sentence is not like the word `flies' in the other in any way (apart
> from spelling).

but we aren't talking about Fly we are talking about Flies, which I
think is an adjective, but my knowledge of english is crap so may be
wrong. Like I say above I think that the sentences are syntatically
wrong and need a '.

 
> If you're saying that the property is inherited, then you're saying
> that
> all things that fly are arrows. Er, no.

No, I am saying that the property flies is common to both arrow and
time. I am not saying they are the same. Perhaps the term inherits is
wrong but you get the idea
 
> > Fruit has the property of fly which is being inherited from banana
> > which is a sub class of fruit.
> 
> So now you're saying that all fruits are bananas?! (Or, if you mean
> the
> property is inherited, that all flies are bananas. Again, no.)

What? no I am saying that fruit has the property of flies, which comes
from banana which shares this property, I am not saying they are the
same. again my poor command of english is letting me down.

Again this shows a down side of english.
 
> I completely fail to understand what on *earth* you're driving at
> here.

Don't worry I had to reread it and I wrote it.
 
> > makes sense to me. Just all depends on how you look at it.
> 
> If you understand object orientation or elementary linguistics,
> you're
> doing a really *good* job of hiding it. Read up on the Liskov
> Substitutability Principle.

I never state either of these facts. I merely put my 'compiler' across
this 'code'

Thanks

D
 
> -- 
> `I'm not sure whether libtool is an existence proof that you _can_
>  write a shell script that handles its arguments correctly, or a
>  demonstration that you may try but you are doomed to failure.'
>                                                        -- Zack
> Weinberg
> 
> 
> -- 
> Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
> http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug 

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug