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

["Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

On 31 déc 2009, 14:48, Marco <prenom_no...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I agree - for code to be reusable in the long run it should have some
> level of abstraction - specification distinguished from implementation
> including public types
>
>   adding awful "Hungarian" names does not help Ada

More words about it (completing my previous words)

An example came into my mind yesterday and makes me think about this
topic here : a example with a usage of the _Access prefix. An example
to show how the use of _Access may not simply be Hungarian notation,
is when this convention is applied to a type whose purpose is to have
the semantic of an access type, that is, when a copy of an entity of
this type used somewhere, will access the same thing as what we would
get with the original, even if some modification was done via the
original later after the copy was done.

This may be implemented as record, an integer, a standard access type.
Hungarian notation would mark it as being a record, an integer or a
standard access type. _Access does not.

This may looks like Hungarian notation, while it is actually not.