Re: Suffix _T for types found good

["Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.acm.org>]

amado.alves@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> --  See?

No. I have no idea what you mean by a node or triad value. Maybe this is because 
  I'm not familiar with the domain, or maybe it's because these are not good 
names, with or without _T.

> And even if you can come up with good different names for types and
> objects, even if you magically did that effortlessly, why double the
> lexicon? Can it possibly make the code better? Just to avoid a suffix
> rule?

It can certainly make the code better. The idea here is not just to avoid a 
rule, but to make the code easier to read and understand. That is worth 
expending extra effort on.

Presumably a node value is a value stored in a node. But the fact that values 
are stored in nodes is not generally an important attribute of those values, and 
so not a basis for a good name for the type.

It seems odd to me to have an explicit type stored in a node. Generally I'd 
expect that to be a generic parameter, with an appropriate name:

type Node_Info is record
    Parent : Node_Index;
    Data   : Element;
    ...
end record;

Or perhaps it has something to do with the implementation of the tree structure:
    Depth : Depth_Value;

I can't even begin to comment on triad value.

There will always be coders who will try to avoid essential effort through 
simple rules.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Sheriff murdered, crops burned, stores looted,
people stampeded, and cattle raped."
Blazing Saddles
35