Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

["Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

On 6 nov, 11:26, Stephen Leake <stephen_le...@stephe-leake.org> wrote:
> "Vincent Marciante" <vmarcia...@decilog.com> writes:
> > "Stephen Leake" <stephen_le...@stephe-leake.org> wrote in message
> >news:u1vkdrert.fsf@stephe-leake.org...
> >> This is illegal:
>
> >>    procedure (List : in list);
>
> >> So we have to add noise to either the object or the type, to keep the
> >> compiler happy. That's all there is to it.
>
> > That is not necessary:
>
> > package sdgfkjasf is -- or whayever
>
> >    type List is ...
>
> >    procedure jsdfks (List : sdgfkjasf.List);
>
> >    ...
>
> That's the first time I've seen that suggestion. It's very
> interesting. The package name has to show up every time the type is
> paired with an object of the same name. But in other situations, the
> package name can be left off.
>
> So this ends up being less noise than appending _Type everywhere.
>
> Just to be pedantic, it _is_ adding noise. It's just a different form
> of noise than _Type.
>
> I'll have to try it in a semi-real project. I've been using _Type for
> over 15 years, so it will take some effort :).
>
> It's interesting why no one seems to have thought of this before.
Perhaps because this is not to be applied in a constant manner