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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,25d835bb9a4a003f X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Marco Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:48:12 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <287b6c3d-4557-4773-b467-74cc24476a5e@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> References: <561e0a4a-c6c0-42db-9f31-a70f4eae1ed9@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> <-9ydneBa_O8wB2TXnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@earthlink.com> <0ef44c2d-3848-4780-8663-f5f96efc7638@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> <4b3b1dea$0$6716$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.32.44.60 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1262267292 19078 127.0.0.1 (31 Dec 2009 13:48:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:48:12 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.32.44.60; posting-account=WITAxQkAAAAHjnLda9Lofpqp8mERTWL4 User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.6) Gecko/20091201 Firefox/3.5.6,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8563 Date: 2009-12-31T05:48:12-08:00 List-Id: On Dec 30, 2:31=A0am, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > > and _Class_Access (although I would enjoy a shorter one for this one) > > postfix for class-wide types and class-wide access, now I feel the > > _Type postfix is not enough. Types and tagged types should be > > distinguishable at first sight as well. > > Are you certain that the removal of abstraction---by adding > type properties to object names---will help when trying to > understand a program? 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