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

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

John G. Volan wrote:
> W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) wrote:
> > 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,
> 
> Nope, that's a nice strawman, but that's not my position at all, 
> you're reading that into what I said.  "Angle" is not necessarily 
> the only Angle_Type object _in the program_, but it may be the only
> Angle_Type object _in a given local scope_.  In that local context, 

So you are suggesting I have independent objects all named "Angle"
all over the place?

> why should I be forced to call that object anything other than the
> simple word "Angle"?

My answer is in the last two lines of this post (not counting .sig)

> > 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);
> 
> Again, quite a pretty strawman. (I can't believe you are being serious
> here.)  

Straw(_Type) has nothing to do with it.  I am not trying to start a 
flame war, but just to discuss different approaches.  You apparently 
need to clarify, "presumably an object and  its type _both_ represent
the _same_ concept"

> Of course you can have as many Angle_Type objects as you like,
> prefixing (or even suffixing) the "Angle" word with whatever 
> "specific" modifiers you like, e.g.,
> 
>    Start_Angle, End_Angle, Rotation_Angle : Angle_Type;
 [snip]
> My scheme has the advantage that a "specific" identifier such as
> "Start_Angle" is clearly the name of an object, ....

...(and "specific" is the way AQS recommends making the distinction)...

> ... and can never be confused as the name of a "specific" derived- 
> or sub-type of  Angle_Type.  

in a group of statements, it's rather hard to confuse _any_ identifier
as the name of any (sub)type.  It's also difficult to misinterpret 
whether a colon is to the left or right of the identifier.  Where
besides in a few pragmas) is such confusion possible?

> > 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.
> 
> Go back a couple posts and look again.  I was objecting to Jeff Carter's
> suggestion of a whole smorgasbord of different type-marking suffixes for
> the different classes of types. For example, for a floating point type,
> you might have something like (not one of Jeff's examples but similar):

In other words, you object to a recommendation that we _avoid_ 
"information hiding"  :-)  I object to that even more than I object to
a blanket "_Type" suffix.  I use "_Type" myself once in a while (on this
project, alwaysm its the law :-) ) but I still hold to my opinions that
it
is usually just five characters of "noise".  In fact, I consider it
usually
a milder form of the same sin you say Jeff promoted.

> >    Start_Point, Rotation, End_Point : Angle;
> > .....
> >    End_Point := Start_Point + Rotation;
> 
> The synonym scheme again.  This blithe violation of semantic economy
> will cost you later if you decide to use the word "Point" to refer to a
> two-dimensional cartesian-coordinate vector, and use "Rotation" to refer
> to a rotational transformation matrix.  It may be wiser to be thrifty
> with your semantics from the start, and simply retain the word "Angle"
> in your objects of Angle_Type:
> 
>   Start_Angle, Rotation_Angle, End_Angle : Angle_Type;

"Synonyms" are not the Point :-) "Angle" would actually have been better 
than "Point"  Either way, there's still no need for "_Type" to make the
identifiers unique.  

The "_Type" suffix has been mandated by more than one project
coding standard at more than one company.  When on such a project, 
I comply.  Nevertheless, the syntax almost always makes it plain 
which identifiers are (sub)types and which are objects, so "_Type" 
adds no meaning.  The extra keystrokes are better used where they 
_do_ add information.  THAT is what _I_ call "semantic economy."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 u l t 0 1  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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------