Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

["Vincent Marciante" <vmarciante@decilog.com>]

"Stephen Leake" <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote in message 
news:uaayu24yf.fsf@stephe-leake.org...
> "Vincent Marciante" <vmarciante@decilog.com> writes:
>
>>>>> That's the first time I've seen that suggestion.
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe you forgot!
>>>
>>> Always possible.
>>>
>>>> The following is part of a old discusion to which you contributed:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> I don't see your point; that old discussion does _not_ propose using
>>> <package>.<type> to resolve the ambiguity.
>>
>> My point was to show that my mentioning using
>> <package>.<type> to resolve ambiguity nicely
>> in my first message was actually not the first
>> time that it was mentioned (ever if not explicitely)
>> in c.l.a.
>
> I still don't get it. If it was not mentioned explicitly, how was it
> mentioned? If I had seen that suggestion before, I might be using it
> now.
>> No big deal, as long as there may now be at least
>> one less "_Type" writer. ;)
>
> Not likely, after 15 years of habit forming.

I just reread all of the old thread and see
exactly what was previously discussed.
How about lets just leave it at this:

Ada _does_ allow one to name an object with the
same simple name as that of its type as long as
the type is in a different declarative region.
Also, (obviously only) one subprogram parameter
can also share the same simple name as its type
as long as the type name is fully qualified.
Given that, adding noise characters to a type
name or a object name is not scrictly necessary.

Vinny