http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861717794
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Matthew Persico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bloody keyboard.... > > Anyway, > > If the singular is > The syntax of the command is.... > > Then the plural possibilites are > > The command has two syntaxes > The command has two syntacies (like incidies) > The command has two forms of syntax > The command has two syntactic forms > The command has two syntactical forms > > I prefer 1 or 5. Either way, just pick one. It's not like this is > French or something where the bloody government has to vote on the > language... > > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Matthew Persico > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If the singular is > > The syntax of the command is.... > > The command has two syntaxes > > The command has two syntacies (like incidies) > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Scott Webster Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > From: Colin Wetherbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> My goal was as a > > > >> time/work saving measure (from the administration perspective) to > > > >> allow 'children' elements to have blank entries where the values > > > >> would get inherited down from parents. > > > > > > >That makes sense. I haven't delved into the object-relational > > > >properties of databases, but I wonder if that kind of inheritance is > > > >easier to achieve than it seems? > > > > > > >If the object-relational thing works out, you may not have to worry > > > >about recursion. I'd suggest investigating that route. > > > > > > >If all else fails and you still want to keep these operations inside > the > > > >database, stored procedures are great for that sort of thing. > > > > > > Yeah, I actually considered the possibility of creating an > accompanying object model in something like perl or the like. perl has a > nice capability of 'packing' it's variables, objects are just instances of > 'blessed' subroutines and subroutines are stored in hashes. So technically > you could pack and store the object instance itself although that would still > require a little finess and some recursive lookups at runtime to get the > inheritance to work right. But once stored in memory, the parents' info > would be availble (but that sorta tosses out the need for a DB other than to > initialize the program memory.) > > > > > > > > > >As for the plural of "syntax", I don't think there is one, but it's > > > >likely possible to pluralize etymologically ancestral versions of it. > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah that became quite a joke as I was leaving the office yesterday. > I did a quick lookup after writing the email and couldn't find a plural for > syntax. I first looked at dictionaries - even foreign ones. I looked > through more than a dozen total. I then turned to google in general. Then > it hit me that figuring out what the plural of syntax is, is another form of > syntax! So I was asking everyone the proper syntax for pluralizing syntax! > I received a plethora of responses (there's another interesting one - what's > the singular or plethora? plethorum?) from syntax (self-plural), syntaxes, > synti ... one person even thought I said 'sin tax' and hid their pack of > cigarettes. > > > > > > SW > > > > > > SW > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and > > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Matthew O. Persico > > > > > > -- > Matthew O. Persico > -- Matthew O. Persico
