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

["W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" <see.signature@this.message>]

John G. Volan wrote:
> 
> Jeff Carter wrote:
> 
> > The problem with putting _Type on the end of all [sub]type names is that
> > it adds no information.
> 
> But that's the whole point! Adding any more information is _undesirable_
> at this point, because presumably an object and its type _both_
> represent the _same_ concept 

If 
   Angle : Angle_Type;
is the only object of Angle_Type, then perhaps the declaration of
Angle_Type is just clutter.  (See my recent post about anonymous
array types.)  But "Angle" is rather vague.  Might we in the future
want to deal with more than one Angle?  

The "same concept" argument could be interpreted to recommend:

   Angle_1   : Angle_1_Type;
   Angle_2   : Angle_2_Type;
   Sum_Angle : Sum_Angle_Type;
.....
   Sum_Angle := Sum_Angle_Type (Angle_1) + Sum_Angle_Type (Angle_2);

If "adding any more information is _undesirable_" then I would say
that a language construct that _must_ be there (though it adds nothing)
is either a flaw in the language or (more likely) a sign that the
program still needs some abstract thought.

The above snippet is much clearer as

   Start_Point, Rotation, End_Point : Angle;
.....
   End_Point := Start_Point + Rotation;

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA
Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS                  Tool-smith Wanna-be

  w w g r o l  at  p s e s e r v 3  dot  f w  dot  h a c  dot  c o m

     SPAM should be sent to   I.want.one@mailbombs.for.idiots.org
 If you don't want to pay $500 (see 47 USC 227), don't send it here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------