From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2a687662f09731bb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!proxad.net!fr.ip.ndsoftware.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!news.n-ix.net!news2.arglkargh.de!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada Quality and Style book discussion
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
In-Reply-To: <u3blv30wu.fsf@acm.org>
References: <dld0t5$df3$1@sunnews.cern.ch>
	 <ZqCdnSOLI6WepefeRVn-uw@comcast.com>
	 <slrndnlfs8.1pa.bogus_addy@tango.mindfuq.org>
	 <m2acg5i1ko.fsf@grendel.local>
	 <dlelkn$g6l$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
	 <slrndnoa1k.22e.bogus_addy@tango.mindfuq.org>
	 <1132227919.9036.51.camel@sonnenregen>  <u3blv30wu.fsf@acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: #
Message-ID: <1132233886.11218.11.camel@sonnenregen>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:24:46 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Nov 2005 14:21:53 MET
NNTP-Posting-Host: c1e4c37d.newsread4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=?7\GXCeEE<IVg>C^g8i1FI:ejgIfPPldDjW\KbG]kaMH1BZS;MmC65FS=<PRSIH^eF8JM^O\[iIdC]0cWmE9eKMN
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6449
Date: 2005-11-17T14:21:53+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 07:37 -0500, Stephen Leake wrote:
> Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 04:49 +0000, Anonymous Coward wrote:
> >>  "_Type" is meaningful, because it indicates a
> >> user defined type.  
> >
> > This alone will justify names like XYZ_Package
> > UVW_Procedure, etc.
> 
> No, it doesn't, because package names never collide with object names.

I'm not sure I understand what particular collision you have in
mind. An artificial example,

   package Y is new X_Package;

   ...

   package Collide is

     type T_Type is range 1 ..99;

     Y: T_Type := 42;

   end Collide;

   ...

   use Collide;

   package H_Package is new G_Package(T_Type, Y, Y);  -- Bang! 

where G_Package is declared

with X_Package;
generic
   type Some_Type is range <>;
   with package Some_Package is new X_Package(<>);  -- package name
   Some_Variable: in out Some_Type;  -- object name
package G_Package is ...

Here, adopting the convention and adding a _Package suffix,

  package Y_Package is new X_Package;

will allow resolving the naming conflict.
But is Y_package the best name?
Or should I just qualify Collide.Y?

> Type names do collide with object names; that's the _only_ reason they
> need a special naming convention.