Re: on package naming, should the word "_pkg" be part of it?

[Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>]

On 9 Oct 2001, it was written:
> In article <20011009174047.V16689-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>, Brian says...
> >
>
> >The meta idea is that the type name is
> >completely generic, like naming tagged types "Class" (hmmm) or "Object"
> >(awful) and the meaningful part of the name is pushed onto the package
> >name.
> >
> >A nastier objection is that many modules have more than one exported type,
> >and not even one that can be called the "main" one. In that case you can
> >still use an "_T" suffix, but since those Ada programmers who prefer a
> >suffix have gravitated towards "_Type" I think that it makes more sense to
> >just use that if you are so inclined.
>
>
> I think all of the above is a side-effect of trying to make Ada look like
> the other 'normal' OO languages, in which the class is the basic and
> primary building block in the program, and not the package. In Ada the
> package is the basic building block in the program.

Only the "T" convention, which I admit was influenced by, among other
things, my reading of "Object Oriented Software Construction". There's
some rule there about one type per module.

The "_Type" convention, as Stephen Leake pointed out, is simply a convention
for putting type names in a different namespace. "_T" or even "_Blech"
works fine, but as I said "_Type" is widely used and we don't work in a
vacuum so if you must choose for real programs I'd strongly advise you to
choose that. I just played around with the "T" convention in code that I
never planned to release to see how I liked it.

As far as an "object<dot>method" syntax for classes goes, I don't think
this is a big deal, but you could be right. I'm relatively insensitive
to syntax choices, but apparently lots of people aren't. I think Tucker
Taft proposed a more conventional syntax for "method" calls for an Ada 0X
but I forget where I saw it.

-- Brian