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!b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hibou57_=28Yannick_Duch=EAne=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions
	question (without religious ware)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:13:21 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <28ad67e3-9efb-4dae-976b-19382c1b4322@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <561e0a4a-c6c0-42db-9f31-a70f4eae1ed9@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
	<hce79b$daf$1@aioe.org> <ygeocnohy02.fsf@hugsarin.sparre-andersen.dk>
	<u4ope4pqa.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <Xns9CB636112C917pcc482719gmailcom@198.186.192.137>
	<u1vkdrert.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <y-Odnak8_-myrm7XnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>
	<uskcsne3h.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <QaWdnfOsAYiw72nXnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
	<u639mop0u.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <c4Cdnet0zaMxw2XXnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@earthlink.com>
	<uaayu24yf.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <-9ydneBa_O8wB2TXnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@earthlink.com>
	<0ef44c2d-3848-4780-8663-f5f96efc7638@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
	<4b3b1dea$0$6716$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 77.198.58.83
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1262182401 16477 127.0.0.1 (30 Dec 2009 14:13:21
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:13:21 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=77.198.58.83;
	posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
	fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8555
Date: 2009-12-30T06:13:21-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 30 d=E9c, 10:31, Georg Bauhaus <rm-host.bauh...@maps.futureapps.de>
wrote:
> Are you certain that the removal of abstraction---by adding
> type properties to object names---will help when trying to
> understand a program? =A0It might rather give the quick reader
> the impression of understanding the program from just a look
> at the objects' names, I think. =A0An illusion, most likely,
> for how could you make meaningful changes to a program by
> knowing just little things like "this is a tagged type" from
> looking at object names?

You are right in some way, as this idea came into my mind while I was
modifying an application which is not mine. So indeed, there may be
some reason to assert this is simply too much quickly said, on a time
where one feel lost and simply do not know enough.

OTOH, there must be a obvious starting point to this understanding,
and this suggested idea may be one after all. Or else (or moreover), I
feel a bit like tagged types and other types does not belong to the
same kind of abstraction any way.

Nevertheless, I will think about the potential Illusion you pointed to
me.