Re: Convention for naming of packages

[Martin Dowie <martin@re.mo.ve.thedowies.com>]

Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57 ) <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Hi people out there,
> 
> There use to be here, discussions about naming convention of types,  
> focusing on whether or not the _Type suffix should be used (I personally 
> opted for it). Don't want to come back to this one here, but about another  
> common (common for me) name conflict: package names which conflict with 
> object names, as package names are often derived from a type name with any  
> suffix removed, and as type names are often derived from generic object 
> names, comes a name conflict with object names and packages names.
> 
> Most of time this does not occur, but when it do, it do. In the mean time,  
> I would like to as much strictly as possible, rely on one naming  
> convention for packages.
> 
> I am thinking the plural could play this role. There may be a limitation 
> to its application, as I feel to know some English nouns do not have a  
> plural, or are spelled the same for both their singular and plural.
> 
> Do you know another better and constant convention well suited for package  
> names? Note: I don't mind if the convention does not match the one of  
> standard packages (I use _Type, and standard packages don't, and I never 
> bothered).
> 
> I'm seeking for any idea from any source.
> 
> Have a sweet time.


Another option is to prefix the type with A_ (or An_). This has the benefit
of mirroring the indefinite article nature of types (ie Class v Object).
You can then name the packages as appropriate - most times plurals make
sense but not always.

Takes a little getting used to but is actually very readable and has all
the benefits of _Type without the 'ugliness'. 

-- Martin


-- 
-- Sent from my iPad