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=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2078dddcdcd8d83
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Aaron Metzger <ametzger@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Warning: Religious naming convention discussion :-) [was: assign
 help!!]
Date: 1997/05/10
Message-ID: <33755EF7.1A8F@erols.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 240782979
References: <5kjvcv$evt@news.cis.nctu.edu.tw> <5kn8ko$jcc@top.mitre.org>
 <1997May7.201035.2439@nosc.mil> <33727EEA.2092@sprintmail.com>
 <5kuf1j$17vi@uni.library.ucla.edu> <3373666A.31DFF4F5@spam.innocon.com>
 <3373EAB5.73A0@sprintmail.com>
Organization: self
X-Received-On: 10 May 1997 22:51:39 GMT
Reply-To: ametzger@innocon.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


John G. Volan wrote:

> But once again, I'd want the rule to be simple and minimalistic: Just
> always mark access types (and access objects) with "_Pointer".
> 

You really put a different spin on the whole debate with this example.
Up to this point I think people were just expressing different naming
conventions for types and objects in the "problem" space.  With
"_Pointer" you are stepping into implementation details.  Maybe in a
small local scope such conventions won't hurt you too much but I hope
you don't propose suffixes such as _Pointer, (or others that I combat
daily --> _Record, _List, _Array) for any type names that are exposed in
package specs.