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

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:11:56 -0700 (PDT), Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne) wrote:

> I do not mean I'm surprised this convention is working fine with the
> Ada standard packages set, I know there is probably a reason which
> explains why it works in this one case : types defined by the Ada
> standard, all have names which express somethings very abstract. As an
> example, Integer would unlikely be the name of any variable, because
> it is too much abstract to be the name of the concrete instance of
> anything. But with at a greater level of specialization, things turns
> to show another face : types tends to have names which are more
> subject to conflict with object / instance names, because as they are
> more specialized, they have much more concrete meaning and semantic,
> and there come the conflicts potential.

A great observation.

> Indeed, the word Map, is more likely to be the name of an object
> instance as well as the name of a type, than Integer is.

No, Map is abstract enough, no less than Integer. Look at the operations +,
-, *, / the Ada designers too had a trouble with names. They use Left,
Right as the names, not very convincing. Mathematicians keep on using x, y.

As for Map I used Container to name an instance of in its operations.

> That's why I'm wondering if in the Ada area, people really use or not,
> the convention without a suffix. I can guess it works find with Ada
> standard stuff, for the reasons introduced just before, but it is more
> difficult to me to imagine how this same convention can practicably
> works as much fine with larger projects dealing with much more
> concrete types.

It is difficult. Sometimes I give up and add "_Type", but I always feel
myself guilty if I do.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de