Re: Natural "for" Loop, using Plural / Singular transformations ??

Tom Copeland <tom@infoether.com>
30 May 2006 18:40:55 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Natural "for" Loop, using Plural / Singular transformations ?? olivier.chatelain@gmail.com (2006-05-26)
Re: Natural "for" Loop, using Plural / Singular transformations ?? owong@castortech.com (Oliver Wong) (2006-05-30)
Re: Natural "for" Loop, using Plural / Singular transformations ?? dmaziuk@bmrb.wisc.edu (Dimitri Maziuk) (2006-05-30)
Re: Natural "for" Loop, using Plural / Singular transformations ?? mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov) (2006-05-30)
Re: Natural "for" Loop, using Plural / Singular transformations ?? tom@infoether.com (Tom Copeland) (2006-05-30)
Re: Natural "for" Loop, using Plural / Singular transformations ?? 148f3wg02@sneakemail.com (Karsten Nyblad) (2006-06-03)
Re: Natural "for" Loop, using Plural / Singular transformations ?? dot@dotat.at (Tony Finch) (2006-06-05)
Re: Natural "for" Loop, using Plural / Singular transformations ?? p_ludemann@yahoo.com (Peter Ludemann) (2006-06-11)
Re: Natural "for" Loop, using Plural / Singular transformations ?? jthorn@aei.mpg.de (Jonathan Thornburg) (2006-06-12)
Re: Natural "for" Loop, using Plural / Singular transformations ?? haberg@math.su.se (2006-06-12)
Re: Natural "for" Loop, using Plural / Singular transformations ?? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2006-06-15)
[2 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Tom Copeland <tom@infoether.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 30 May 2006 18:40:55 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 06-05-083
Keywords: syntax

On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 12:51 -0400, olivier.chatelain@gmail.com wrote:
> PS: This idea is ispired by "Ruby on Rails" ORM, using Plural for the
> Database-Tables.
> [OK, what's the plural of deer or sheep?


$ ruby -rubygems -e "require 'active_support' ; ['deer','sheep'].each {|
word| puts word.pluralize }"
deers
sheep


One out of two isn't bad :-)


> Attempts to make English-like programming languages have a long
> history. Cobol was the first and I think the most successful, and
> although it was very successful as a language, giving us stuff like
> C structures, it was pretty much a failure as English. -John]


Debating this feature is pretty much a permathread on the Ruby on Rails
mailing list...


Yours,


Tom


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.