Re: Warning: Religious naming convention discussion :-) [was: assign help!!]

["John G. Volan" <johnvolan@sprintmail.com>]

Jeff Carter wrote:
> 
>    type Error_Count is range ...
>    Num_Errors : Error_Count;

Nope, that's the synonym method, semantically uneconomical.

  type Num_Errors_Type is range ...;
  Num_Errors : Num_Errors_Type;

But I don't want to use plurals in type/object names, because I want to
reserve the plural form as my marker for a package.

>    type Error_Id is ...
>    Last_Error : Error_Id;

Nope, that's marking the object with a "specific" adjective. If "error"
is enough to convey the sense that it's an id and not a count, then why
not just dispense with "_id"?

  Last_Error : Error; -- marking the object vs. the type

But what would you do if you're in a context where you don't have any
convenient adjective for the situation? Resort to a default marker?
("The_"?) I say, mark the type and don't force programmers to mark the
objects. e.g., My scheme:

  procedure Display
    (Error : in Error_Type);  -- it' just some error you want displayed
                              -- not necessarily the last one

Your scheme (?):

  procedure Display
    (The_Error : in Error); -- marking the object vs. the type


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet.Usenet.Put_Signature 
  (Name => "John G. Volan",  Home_Email => "johnvolan@sprintmail.com",
   Slogan => "Ada95: The World's *FIRST* International-Standard OOPL",
   Disclaimer => "These opinions were never defined, so using them " & 
     "would be erroneous...or is that just nondeterministic now? :-) ");
------------------------------------------------------------------------