From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,25d835bb9a4a003f
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!195.14.215.230.MISMATCH!news.netcologne.de!newsfeed-hp2.netcologne.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:17:54 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20090915 Thunderbird/3.0b4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Types,
 packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question
 (without religious ware)
References: 
 <ae7fb66b-4eff-405f-b568-77a1047ec6cb@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <4ae9dade$0$6551$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <wcc8wet7nsr.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
In-Reply-To: <wcc8wet7nsr.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4aea68f3$0$6589$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Oct 2009 05:17:55 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: eecaac8c.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=:X81o3A?LXbJ00P1S40fZgMcF=Q^Z^V3h4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOkCULhZK]@5BaPCY\c7>ejVhSg@R<7F;\ZdnXB^::fcdBh
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8871
Date: 2009-10-30T05:17:55+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 10/30/09 1:01 AM, Robert A Duff wrote:

> In some cases, "just any object" is the right answer.
> No need for discomfort.
> For example, parameters of general-purpose procedures.
>
>      function To_Upper(X: String) return String;
>      --  Convert X to upper case.
>
> There's nothing interesting to say about X, except that
> it's a String.  Just any String.  Trying to come up with
> a meaningful name for X will just generate noise.

I agree, and would add the following restriction:
A case excluded from the rule "nothing interesting
to say about <name> except that it's a <type>" is when
there are many of those <name>s.  I have seen too many
transcriptions of formulas (and also instances where
math writing habits have been carried over to computer
porograms):  The domain knowledge compressed into single
letters in the writings of the domain specialist (which
are written and read in domain context), is just copied
into a program.  But the programming context is different!
So the text should be different, too, to reflect the
different context.

But authors complain that languages like Pascal,
Ada, or Scheme < R6RS, don't let them have names
"p" and "P" denote different objects in the same
declarative part...