On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 05:34:08PM +0200, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote: > Am Montag, 20. Juni 2005 16:36 schrieben Sie: > > Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [...] > > > > > > > This is very bad IMO because of the existence of the German word "Kind" > > > which you also mention below which means child. > > > > well, my experience having to do with translating to French parts of > > ISO standards has been that those sorts of confusion are unavoidable. > > > > If you really want to avoid confusion, you end up inventing new words, > > which some people find worse than reusing existing words or not > > translating at all. The usual trick is to redefine from the outset > > what the words mean in the technical contexts. This is what is done, > > even in English! It is not like "constructor", "type" or "class" do > > not already have meanings. The example of Xmas tree constructors > > meeting kids can actually lead to pleasant programs to read ;-) > > Of course, natural language is alway ambiguous as someone already mentioned. > And we often have to reuse existing words like "constructor" or "type" for > scientific purposes which forces us to declare what we mean with these words.
I propose that all future haskell discussion take place in lojban. :) http://www.lojban.org/ I will start tranlating the jhc docs. (which is very easy as there arn't any) John -- John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈ _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell