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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7eaf9f2597de2259 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-04 15:13:19 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!feed.textport.net!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!sea-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: on package naming, should the word In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20011004150358.M14557-100000@shell5.ba.best.com> References: <9pif1o01btl@drn.newsguy.com> <3BBCC7EF.6C59C85D@otelco.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 22:13:15 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.184.139.136 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: sea-read.news.verio.net 1002233595 206.184.139.136 (Thu, 04 Oct 2001 22:13:15 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 22:13:15 GMT Organization: Verio Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13748 Date: 2001-10-04T22:13:15+00:00 List-Id: On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Preben Randhol wrote: > On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 21:04:49 GMT, Ted Dennison wrote: > > In article <3BBCC7EF.6C59C85D@otelco.net>, Larry Hazel says... > >>"mike@nospam" wrote: > >>> package foo_pkg is... > >>> > >>> i.e. the name of the package contains "pkg" or "package" in the name itself. > >>> > >>> this seems redundent to me, but may be not. what do folks think? About redundancy? Go to http://www.averstar.com/~stt/tools99lang.htm and click on the section titled "The Big Trick to Catching Errors Early". > >>That is sponsored by the Department of Redundancy Department. I think it is an > >>ugly distraction, similar to adding _Type to type names. I notice the RM > >>doesn't defint Integer_Type, Float_Type, etc. > > > > I think its dangerous to point to the LRM as the cannonical source of proper > > naming, but otherwise I agree completely. > > :-( I thought it made the source code even more readable. Especially to > add _Type to ones own types. Lots of people like that style in Ada. I do. Norman Cohen uses it consistently in his textbook, even though one could make a good argument for using a terser style in a textbook. John English uses it in his textbook. If types had a separate namespace then that might tip the balance for me, but they don't, so I prefer this bit of redundancy. For packages, I don't like it so much either, but I like to use descriptive package names, very short type names (like "T" when there is just one public type in the package) and fully qualified names (though I despise rules like "never use use" and dislike the "use type" construct of Ada 95). De gustibus... -- Brian