From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

Often we stumble across text output from software, like

Copy 42 items (12 minutes left).
...
Copy 1 items (1 minutes left).

Since I'm also doing a lot of text oriented processing
I'm usually using some pluralization, e.g. in "C" like

printf ("Copy %d item%s ...", n, (n>1 ? "s" : "") );

In some (roguelike) game packages that also use a lot
text output (partly synthesized) they use sophisticated
functions, e.g. like makeplural (body_part (FOOT)));

I like that; it produces readable output and the software
induce confidence that the programmers have spent some
more precision in their code than sloppier programmers
would have done - or (to make it sound less offensive)
programmers who have other priorities than such details.

In some of my recent Algol 68 toys this "requirement"
appeared again. But (unlike as with "C") I noticed that
using operators instead of functions creates IMO better
legible code. So instead of inline-ternary operators ?:
or procedures these Algol 68 operator variants emerged:

PRIO PLURAL = 6;

OP PLURAL = (INT amount, STRING word) STRING :
whole (amount, 0) + word + ( amount > 1 | "s" | "" );

and

OP PLURAL = (INT amount, STRING word) STRING :
( amount | "one", "two", "three", "four", "five",
"six", "seven", "eight", "nine", "ten"
| whole (amount, 0) )
+ word + ( amount > 1 | "s" | "" );


alleviating the application text from "stringifying"
with an explicit whole(n,0) or conditionals. Producing
output (depending on the variant) like

Get 1 horse or 2 dogs or 3 cats or 12 fleas to get happy.

Get one horse or two dogs or three cats or 12 fleas to get happy.

for string elements like
1 PLURAL " horse"
2 PLURAL " dog"
3 PLURAL " cat"
12 PLURAL " flea"

If we'd have postfix operators available it could have
also been (with an operator named 'S') even more tersely
(yet legible)
1 " horse" S
2 " dog" S
3 " cat" S
12 " flea" S


Janis
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
[...]

Since I'm also doing a lot of text oriented processing
I'm usually using some pluralization, e.g. in "C" like

printf ("Copy %d item%s ...", n, (n>1 ? "s" : "") );

[...]

I'd probably write :

printf("Copy %d item%s ...", n, n==1 ? "" : "s");

"Copy 0 items" seems more correct than "Copy 0 item".
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

On 23/08/2025 17:49, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

Often we stumble across text output from software, like
Copy 42 items (12 minutes left).
...
Copy 1 items (1 minutes left).
Since I'm also doing a lot of text oriented processing
I'm usually using some pluralization, e.g. in "C" like
printf ("Copy %d item%s ...", n, (n>1 ? "s" : "") );

Firstly, I agree with Keith that English uses the
plural in the case n = 0; n < 0 is, I suppose, unlikely to
occur in real examples.

[...]. So instead of inline-ternary operators ?:
or procedures these Algol 68 operator variants emerged:
PRIO PLURAL = 6;
OP PLURAL = (INT amount, STRING word) STRING :
whole (amount, 0) + word + ( amount > 1 | "s" | "" );

Secondly, if you're generalising, then you "should" look
at the end of "word": eg "flies" rather than "flys". I accept,
of course, that there are limits to how much should be done; you
can spend years tweaking stuff like that.

alleviating the application text from "stringifying"
with an explicit whole(n,0) or conditionals. Producing
output (depending on the variant) like
Get 1 horse or 2 dogs or 3 cats or 12 fleas to get happy.

Not really relevant, but I recall David Crystal grumbling
about the calls for phonetic spelling, and pointing out that we
usually get plurals by adding "s", but phonetically we would have
"cats", "dogz" and "horsiz", and a mess!
--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Grieg
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

On 24.08.2025 00:08, Keith Thompson wrote:

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
[...]

Since I'm also doing a lot of text oriented processing
I'm usually using some pluralization, e.g. in "C" like

printf ("Copy %d item%s ...", n, (n>1 ? "s" : "") );

[...]

I'd probably write :

Yes, sure. That was just an ad hoc typed sample to show
what I'm basically doing when considering more accurate
formulations in software.

printf("Copy %d item%s ...", n, n==1 ? "" : "s");

For legibility I prefer using parenthesis, though.

(And not only because of precedence rules in case of C++
where you typically cout << ... items.)

"Copy 0 items" seems more correct than "Copy 0 item".

Well, *that* can't happen in this application case. ;-)
(I would also not "add -2 items", BTW, to indicate any
removal.)

But in the cases that you're obviously referring to I'd
typically also avoid numbers and use "no items" (or "zero
items", depending on context).

Janis

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

On 24.08.2025 01:01, Andy Walker wrote:

On 23/08/2025 17:49, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

Often we stumble across text output from software, like
Copy 42 items (12 minutes left).
...
Copy 1 items (1 minutes left).
Since I'm also doing a lot of text oriented processing
I'm usually using some pluralization, e.g. in "C" like
printf ("Copy %d item%s ...", n, (n>1 ? "s" : "") );

Firstly, I agree with Keith that English uses the
plural in the case n = 0; n < 0 is, I suppose, unlikely to
occur in real examples.

As said in my reply to Keith's post this makes no sense in
an application case where I illustrated a copying progress.

(I agree of course about the plural of 0; how could I not.)

[...]. So instead of inline-ternary operators ?:
or procedures these Algol 68 operator variants emerged:
PRIO PLURAL = 6;
OP PLURAL = (INT amount, STRING word) STRING :
whole (amount, 0) + word + ( amount > 1 | "s" | "" );

Secondly, if you're generalising, then you "should" look
at the end of "word": eg "flies" rather than "flys". I accept,
of course, that there are limits to how much should be done; you
can spend years tweaking stuff like that.

The context where I use that is a very primitive application
case; I'm not doing text generation or anything complex like
that. - In my post I had mentioned roguelikes, like Nethack.
If you want to see a much more sophisticated algorithm have a
look into the respective source code; they have spent really
a lot effort for pluralizing rules (much more than just the
example you added!), dozens or even hundreds of lines (IIRC).
To give an example; most stuff (items) are fixed in Nethack,
but there's one thing where you can externally define a fruit;
without thinking I defined "cactus", and was surprised when I
played a game and found "two cacti" lying on the ground. :-)

Janis

[...]

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2