Moin!
> Dan Ingalls wrote:
> 
> > Yes.  We refer to this as "implicit self".  Alan is the strongest
> proponent of this appraoch in our group, actually, and SELF works this
way
> as well.  We seriously considered this also back in ST-74 (!).  The two
> things that have prevented enthusiastic adoption of this approach are...
> 
>     erm... (free spanish course)
>     I have something else to say about this... In spanish we have
> something called
> "sujeto tácito [tácito] [tacito]" which can (?) be translated as
> "tacit subject" or
> "missing subject" or better "implicit subject". It's a construct in our
> language (I think
> partuguese and other latin languages has it too, but english and german
> don't). As the
Yes, we have in colloquial German a construct that is compareable to tacit
subject. You will never read it elswhere than in WERNER comics, though. The
reason is, that it is colloqial. The latin languages may have this
naturally because their common ancestor -Latin- emloyed it already. The primary
prceondition for having a missing subject is that the conjugations of the verb
give you some clue about who may be an appropriate subject.
But: even in English you can leave out subjects _in imperative sentences_
And that's what a simple program is mostly made of (apart from some
questions).

Regards, Torge

> verb is conjugated for every person, we don't need to say "I", or "it".
> An example:
> 
>     It is THE SAME to say "Yo como papas" [I eat potatoes] than "Como
> papas"
> ([I] eat potatoes). (actually the first is a little more strong, if it
> can be said)
> 
>     The verb "como" (eat) has an implicit "I" in its conjugation. It
> (I) como,
> (You) comes, (He) come, (We) comemos, (You [plural) comen, (Them)
> comen.
> 
>     So, what?
>     We are used to not saying the subject of a sentence, that may be
> why we consider
> implicit self not so disturbing... (may IT be?)
> 
>     Changing the subject (just a little)
> 
>     When I first learned Logo (my first computer language) 14 yeas ago
> (I was 11),
> I had to say "forward 20" "right 90" "repeat 10 [fw 10. rt 36]"
>     Who was I talking to? to the turtle, of course. was I think:
> 
>     "self forward 20"
>     "self right 90"
> 
>     or
> 
>     "manuelita forward 20" (manuelita is a tipical turtle's name in
> argentina)
>     "manuelita right 90"
> 
>     or just
> 
>     "forward 20"    (looking at the triangle)
>     "right 20"        (again, looking at the triangle)
> 
>     I think (I'm trying to remeber through 14 years) the last one.
> 
>     just some other $0.02
> 
> 
>     Slow-as-a-turtle bye!
>     Richie++
> 
> --
> A390 1BBA 2C58 D679 5A71 - 86F9 404F 4B53 3944 C2D0
> Investigacion y Desarrollo - CoreLabs - Core SDI
> http://www.core-sdi.com
> 
> 
> 
> --- For a personal reply use gera at core-sdi.com
> 

-- 
Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net