Re: on package naming, should the word "_pkg" be part of it?

[Vincent Marciante <marciant_remove@li.net>]

Stephen Leake wrote:
> 
> Jeffrey Carter <jrcarter@acm.org> writes:
> 
> > I was simply making the point that those who think sticking _Type on
> > every type name or _Package on every package name is a Good Thing should
> > also think sticking _Procedure on every procedure name, _Parameter on
> > every parameter name, and such are also Good Things.
> 
> Hmm. Stating what I "should" think is not very productive; better to
> ask what I _do_ think, and why.
> 
> I use _Type. The reason is that types and objects share the same
> namespace, yet the most reasonable name for an object and a type is
> the same:
> 
> type Car is record ... end record;
> 
> Car : Car;
> 
> This is natural, but illegal. The easiest (for _me_, not for
> everyone!) way to resolve it is to add some "noise" to either the
> object or the type. Since the object name will appear more often than
> the type, I add noise to the type:
> 
> type Car_Type is record ... end record;
> 
> Car : Car_Type;

If you declare the type in another package then you do not 
have to add any "noise" to the simple type name.  

By the way, your argument above implies that you are expecting
to any have one object of the type.  In my experience, It is 
rare to have only one object of a type - I would not add _type
to all type definitions as a convention just to make the rare
case "easy" to deal with.


Vincent Marciante