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-Thread: 103376,1b41412c7bc28c47
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wns14feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s21.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.acm.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Suffix _T for types found good
References: <2e9ebb23-a68b-43cf-8871-febcb173f951@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
 	<IHmmk.286534$yE1.220045@attbi_s21>
 <188191be-d2c6-4d94-8d6b-082015954332@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
 	<489A0440.9080201@obry.net>
 <594cdbb8-4018-44bd-a8db-0df3f23df247@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <594cdbb8-4018-44bd-a8db-0df3f23df247@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <2dqmk.286756$yE1.10484@attbi_s21>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.201.97.213
X-Complaints-To: abuse@mchsi.com
X-Trace: attbi_s21 1218064318 12.201.97.213 (Wed, 06 Aug 2008 23:11:58 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 23:11:58 GMT
Organization: AT&T ASP.att.net
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 23:11:58 GMT
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1481
Date: 2008-08-06T23:11:58+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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