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

[dhenry <tfc.duke@gmail.com>]

I'm working on a "real" project and the convention we have chosen is
to use suffixes _Type, _Array_Type and _Access:

type Foo_Type is private;
type Foo_Access is access all Foo_Type;
type Foo_Array_Type is array (Positive range <>) of Foo_Type;

We use simple rules, so that _Access can be either used for an
"access", and "access all" or an access on a 'Class. If we need both
class-wide access and simple access, we can use _Class_Access but it's
not hard-written in our coding standard rules. This may not be
rigorous, but we're fine with it because it's simple (when we decided
about our coding standards, we didn't want to produce dozens of pages
of rules).

However there are some drawbacks, like how to name a variable which
should be "message type" (an integer identifying the kind of a
message). We can't use Message_Type, so we use Message_Typ (which is
of type Message_Typ_Type). That's not pretty at all.

I have a question for people not using any suffix like _Type or _T or
whatever: how do you name your access types? Do you allow here to use
a suffix?

Yours,
David.