User talk:Chunes: Difference between revisions
(→"Code review" for Plain English: naming routines) |
m (→"Code review" for Plain English: more thoughts) |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:<lang plainenglish>A factorial is a number. |
:<lang plainenglish>A factorial is a number. |
||
To |
To compute a factorial of a number: |
||
... |
... |
||
\Calling the routine |
\Calling the routine |
||
Compute a factorial of 5. |
|||
Write "" then the factorial on the console.</lang> |
Write "" then the factorial on the console.</lang> |
||
:Declaring type aliases to make routines sound more natural is commonplace in the noodle, so I think it's idiomatic. |
:Declaring type aliases to make routines sound more natural is commonplace in the noodle, so I think it's idiomatic. The downside here is the indefinite article <code>a</code> sounds a bit off. You could also use <code>some</code>, but it still sounds strange, like there could be more than one result. |
||
:The second is |
:The second is |
||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
Compute the factorial of 5 giving a number. |
Compute the factorial of 5 giving a number. |
||
Write "" then the number on the console.</lang> |
Write "" then the number on the console.</lang> |
||
:I've seen this "giving" phrasing in the noodle as well, and I think it's a fairly elegant solution |
:I've seen this "giving" phrasing in the noodle as well, and I think it's a fairly elegant solution. --[[User:Chunes|Chunes]] ([[User talk:Chunes|talk]]) 15:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:57, 25 September 2020
"Code review" for Plain English
Hello Chunes, would you please take a look at my implementation of factorial? I'm not quite happy with it, and I hope could suggest some improvements. For example, I don't like the phrase To put a number's factorial into another number
, but don't know how else to make it work. Same with Put the number's factorial into the number
, which seems quite an unnatural thing to say in plain English. I would like to keep the recursive approach however, just make it more "idiomatic" if there's such thing as idiomatic Plain English. Thanks for help! --Dick de Bill (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've been struggling a bit myself with naming routines. I think I would go one of two ways with this. The first is
- <lang plainenglish>A factorial is a number.
To compute a factorial of a number: ...
\Calling the routine Compute a factorial of 5. Write "" then the factorial on the console.</lang>
- Declaring type aliases to make routines sound more natural is commonplace in the noodle, so I think it's idiomatic. The downside here is the indefinite article
a
sounds a bit off. You could also usesome
, but it still sounds strange, like there could be more than one result.
- The second is
- <lang plainenglish>To compute the factorial of a number giving another number:
...
\Calling the routine Compute the factorial of 5 giving a number. Write "" then the number on the console.</lang>