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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1b41412c7bc28c47
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!uucp.gnuu.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Suffix _T for types found good
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <2e9ebb23-a68b-43cf-8871-febcb173f951@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
  <4899d2af$0$19731$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
 <sbidndoc_aQH0wfVnZ2dnUVZ_tjinZ2d@comcast.com>
 <Pine.WNT.4.64.0808071536330.4692@teor1> <uwsispxj0.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
 <efded36d-c0f1-45f9-b1ac-f3575f642ad7@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
 <9LmdncTBAPGV5jbVnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@comcast.com>
 <u8wur6gok.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <37793f2b-2cc6-4aba-856e-cbfe503872a5@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:38:04 +0200
Message-ID: <1xqborx4epefc.11z7g8cmj4nlp.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Aug 2008 17:38:07 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 608447ff.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=7\=_lmQAe2i>jlK2>IgHGd4IUK<Cl32<a4Fo<]lROoRaFl8W>\BH3YbNHnmVf8:^]kDNcfSJ;bb[eIRnRBaCd<MnJO1T0l3<0;la=eCcVE7QSo
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7410
Date: 2008-08-20T17:38:07+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Adam Beneschan wrote:

> Yeah, earlier on in this thread I was thinking about whether it would
> have been possible for Ada to have separate namespaces for types and
> other non-type entities without ambiguities.  Attributes make this
> impossible.

Nope. In all cases the type and variable names can be overloaded. Any
difference between them is not lexical.

> Offhand, I'm not sure whether context is always
> sufficient to distinguish types from non-types, other than with
> attributes.

That is not required by Ada design, which permits hiding and clashes of
names.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de