Re: [Haskell] translation of "kind"
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
Re: [Haskell] Bignums in Haskell
Well, to nitpick a little, Haskell is a language standard, and it does not specify a particular implementation for bignums. However, GHC uses GMP for arbitrary precision integers, and I think Hugs does as well. I can't really comment on NHC. http://www.swox.com/gmp/index.orig.html Marco Morazan wrote: Dear All, I am searching for documents/web pages that describe how bignums (integers of arbitrary size) are implemented in Haskell. In particular, I am interested in how bignums are represented, the algorithms used for bignum arithmetic, base conversion algorithms, and performance studies. Any pointers you can provide will be greatly appreciated. Best wishes, Marco ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
[Haskell] Bignums in Haskell
Dear All, I am searching for documents/web pages that describe how bignums (integers of arbitrary size) are implemented in Haskell. In particular, I am interested in how bignums are represented, the algorithms used for bignum arithmetic, base conversion algorithms, and performance studies. Any pointers you can provide will be greatly appreciated. Best wishes, Marco ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell] translation of "kind"
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 01:11:27PM +0200, Andreas Rossberg wrote: > Indeed. Moreover, my impression is that many Germans rather tend to say > "die Kind" instead when they have to, maybe because that is the gender > you have for "Sorte", "Art", and "Gattung". ^^^ Well, then what about "Gattung"? Ciao, Kili ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell] translation of "kind"
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. However, just using "Kind" for "kind" in German texts is different. Here, we don't use an existing German word and define its meaning in scientific context. Instead we use an English word which by accident has the same spelling but a totally different meaning, probably a totally different etymological root and also a notably different pronouncation. So this is not like your "constructor" and "type" examples. Translating kind into "Sorte", "Art" or whatsever would correspond to these examples but just using the original English word is a totally different thing. > -- Gaby Best wishes, Wolfgang ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell] translation of "kind"
Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Am Montag, 20. Juni 2005 11:46 schrieben Sie: | > Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote: | > > can anybody tell me what the German translation of the word "kind" as | > > used in type theory and especially in Haskell is? | > | > Even Peter Thiemann in "Grundlagen der funktionalen Programmierung" | > (1994) did not translate "Kind", | | 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 ;-) -- Gaby ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell] translation of "kind"
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote: Am Montag, 20. Juni 2005 11:46 schrieben Sie: Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote: can anybody tell me what the German translation of the word "kind" as used in type theory and especially in Haskell is? Even Peter Thiemann in "Grundlagen der funktionalen Programmierung" (1994) did not translate "Kind", This is very bad IMO because of the existence of the German word "Kind" which you also mention below which means child. although he used "geschönfinkelt" for "curry" (honoring logicians Schönfinkel and Curry) This is crazy! Someone who doesn't know Schönfinkel (as I did so far) may think that "schönfinkeln" (which would be the infinitive) is a combination of "schön" (nice) and a previously unknown word "finkeln" which is extremely similar to... Hmm, Germans will know which word I think of. :-) :-) Oh my God! Don't you have other problems? "Typ" and "Modell" also have meanings in German that are quite different from their meanings in logic and cs ;-) Peter ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell] translation of "kind"
Am Montag, 20. Juni 2005 14:01 schrieb Ralf Hinze: > Am Montag, 20. Juni 2005 13:45 schrieb Christian Maeder: > > you could also say "ein Typkonstruktor mit Kind ..." (and leave the > > gender open) > > Hier ist er: > , > _/^\_ > < > > /.-.\ > `/&\` > ,@.*;@, > /_o.I %_\ >(`'--:o(_@; > /`;--.,__ `') > ;@`o % O,*`'`&\ > (`'--)_@ ;o %'()\ > ,==. /`;--._`''--._O'@; > / 66\ /&*,()~o`;-.,_ `""`) > \c -_) /`,@ ;+& () o*`;-';\ > `) ( (`""--.,_0 +% @' &()\ > / \ /-.,_``''---'`) > / \ \ /@%;o`:;'--,.__ __.'\ > (( /\ \_ ;*,&(); @ % &^;~`"`o;@(); > \\ \ `--` /(); o^~; & ()[EMAIL PROTECTED]&`;&%O\ > / / / `"="==""==,,,.,="=="==="` > (_(___) # > > .. der Tpykonstruktor `Tree' mit Kind ... :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) Viele Grüße Wolfgang ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell] translation of "kind"
Am Montag, 20. Juni 2005 11:46 schrieben Sie: > Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote: > > can anybody tell me what the German translation of the word "kind" as > > used in type theory and especially in Haskell is? > > Even Peter Thiemann in "Grundlagen der funktionalen Programmierung" > (1994) did not translate "Kind", This is very bad IMO because of the existence of the German word "Kind" which you also mention below which means child. > although he used "geschönfinkelt" for "curry" (honoring logicians > Schönfinkel and Curry) This is crazy! Someone who doesn't know Schönfinkel (as I did so far) may think that "schönfinkeln" (which would be the infinitive) is a combination of "schön" (nice) and a previously unknown word "finkeln" which is extremely similar to... Hmm, Germans will know which word I think of. :-) :-) > I'ld prefer "der Kind" (and avoid situtations that allowed confusion > with "das Kind") > > Cheers Christian Best wishes, Wolfgang ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell] translation of "kind"
Am Montag, 20. Juni 2005 13:45 schrieb Christian Maeder: > you could also say "ein Typkonstruktor mit Kind ..." (and leave the > gender open) Hier ist er: , _/^\_ < > /.-.\ `/&\` ,@.*;@, /_o.I %_\ (`'--:o(_@; /`;--.,__ `') ;@`o % O,*`'`&\ (`'--)_@ ;o %'()\ ,==. /`;--._`''--._O'@; / 66\ /&*,()~o`;-.,_ `""`) \c -_) /`,@ ;+& () o*`;-';\ `) ( (`""--.,_0 +% @' &()\ / \ /-.,_``''---'`) / \ \ /@%;o`:;'--,.__ __.'\ (( /\ \_ ;*,&(); @ % &^;~`"`o;@(); \\ \ `--` /(); o^~; & ()[EMAIL PROTECTED]&`;&%O\ / / / `"="==""==,,,.,="=="==="` (_(___) # .. der Tpykonstruktor `Tree' mit Kind ... ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell] translation of "kind"
Ralf Hinze wrote: > Am Montag, 20. Juni 2005 12:06 schrieb Christian Maeder: >>Even Peter Thiemann in "Grundlagen der funktionalen Programmierung" >>(1994) did not translate "Kind", although he used "geschönfinkelt" for >>"curry" (honoring logicians Schönfinkel and Curry) >> >>I'ld prefer "der Kind" (and avoid situtations that allowed confusion >>with "das Kind") > > Honestly, this is truly horrible (sorry, Peter). Just try to read it > aloud: "der Kind des Typkonstruktors ...". you could also say "ein Typkonstruktor mit Kind ..." (and leave the gender open) Christian ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell] translation of "kind"
Ralf Hinze wrote: I'ld prefer "der Kind" (and avoid situtations that allowed confusion with "das Kind") Honestly, this is truly horrible (sorry, Peter). Just try to read it aloud: "der Kind des Typkonstruktors ...". Indeed. Moreover, my impression is that many Germans rather tend to say "die Kind" instead when they have to, maybe because that is the gender you have for "Sorte", "Art", and "Gattung". -- Andreas Rossberg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let's get rid of those possible thingies! -- TB ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell] translation of "kind"
Am Montag, 20. Juni 2005 12:06 schrieb Christian Maeder: > Even Peter Thiemann in "Grundlagen der funktionalen Programmierung" > (1994) did not translate "Kind", although he used "geschönfinkelt" for > "curry" (honoring logicians Schönfinkel and Curry) > > I'ld prefer "der Kind" (and avoid situtations that allowed confusion > with "das Kind") Honestly, this is truly horrible (sorry, Peter). Just try to read it aloud: "der Kind des Typkonstruktors ...". ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell] translation of "kind"
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote: Am Samstag, 18. Juni 2005 20:25 schrieben Sie: can anybody tell me what the German translation of the word "kind" as used in type theory and especially in Haskell is? Wie wär's mit `Sorte', Ralf I have already thought about that but was not sure it was correct since the meaning of "Sorte" in algebra is very different from what is meant with "kind" in type theory. This confusion is already present within the English language: the theorem prover Isabelle uses the English term "sort" for what in Haskell is called "kind", while in the context of universal algebra, "sort" means what in Haskell is called (basic) "type". Hence "sort" and "Sorte" perhaps should be avoided entirely. -- Till Mossakowski Phone +49-421-218-4683 Dept. of Computer Science Fax +49-421-218-3054 University of Bremen [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.O.Box 330440, D-28334 Bremen http://www.tzi.de/~till ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell] translation of "kind"
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote: > can anybody tell me what the German translation of the word "kind" as used in > type theory and especially in Haskell is? Even Peter Thiemann in "Grundlagen der funktionalen Programmierung" (1994) did not translate "Kind", although he used "geschönfinkelt" for "curry" (honoring logicians Schönfinkel and Curry) I'ld prefer "der Kind" (and avoid situtations that allowed confusion with "das Kind") Cheers Christian ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
