Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

["Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

On 30 oct, 19:57, "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter....@spam.acm.org>
wrote:
> When you see
>
> Append (List => List, Element => Element);
>
> you don't really know what's being appended to what. Compare that to
>
> Append (Onto => Widget_List, Item => Next_Widget);

So in some way, the difference between the not-suffixed convention and
the suffixed convention, has something similar to the difference
between typed and non-typed (or loosely typed) language ?

You want to mean it may be more long, sometime a bit difficult, but
finally better express things, just like strong typed language takes
sometime more long to setup a design, but are finally give clearer and
more explicit architectures.

But is it an universal feature or is it because it is Ada which does
not allow object name and type name to be the same (you may reply that
if Ada does not allow this, this to enforce different names)

I ask questions, but right now try to give my first feeling about it :
typing express the logic of a domain, and if typing is not well
designed, this means the domain is not well modeled. But naming deals
with natural language, whose concern is not the same as formal
languages. So natural languages may not provide all the vocabulary
required to express all specific nuances which come with formal
languages.

After all (and now I'm back to the opposite way after the previous
suggestion), isn't the _Type suffix, something similar to the ending
"s" meaning the plural ? If natural languages were close to formal
languages, there may be a suffix expressing that a thing is an
instance abstraction (a type) or even a class, just like natural
languages gave us the plural mark.

Two ways, with both good arguments, but this may help to better
understand (linguistic and things around may be good guests here).