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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1b41412c7bc28c47,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: amado.alves@gmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Suffix _T for types found good
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 07:58:18 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <2e9ebb23-a68b-43cf-8871-febcb173f951@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.214.18.142
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1218034698 9580 127.0.0.1 (6 Aug 2008 14:58:18
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 14:58:18 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.214.18.142;
	posting-account=3cDqWgoAAAAZXc8D3pDqwa77IryJ2nnY
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1;
	.NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.0.04506; .NET CLR
	1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7188
Date: 2008-08-06T07:58:18-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I just want to offer my experience on the old issue of adding a suffix
_T to all type names.

In my experience it is good.

In a large (50KLOC) industrial experience of analysing Ada 95 source
(written by others) this convention clearly helped understanding the
source and writing test cases. This was a team work.

I started using the convention in the personal process also, and also
experienced improvement. In the personal process, I particularly like
that:

(1) I don't have to think up "good" type names that sometimes simply
do not exist; too often it is very difficult or impossible to come up
with a good pattern of names for the type, the object, the array,
etc.; with _T at least one term is removed from the equation

(2) I can promptly write things like

  Index : Index_T;
  procedure Proc (Index : Index_T);
  etc.

For access types I have been writing _Ptr_T but I'm not 100% happy.

Regarding "_T" vs. "_Type" I am convinced the former is better but I
have to leave the advocacy for later. Or for others ;-)