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!news3.google.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!83.128.0.12.MISMATCH!news-out2.kabelfoon.nl!newsfeed.kabelfoon.nl!xindi.nntp.kabelfoon.nl!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:38:43 +0100 From: Georg Bauhaus 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: <561e0a4a-c6c0-42db-9f31-a70f4eae1ed9@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <4af418d8$0$7633$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 06 Nov 2009 13:38:48 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: 9e02e8ad.newsspool1.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=k^Y7TH1f`V1TQL:hoD@>T?ic==]BZ:af>4Fo<]lROoR1<`=YMgDjhg2Hbm@c@?m5g=PCY\c7>ejV8^=CSEl^`L<8ooTgmIf?378 X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9014 Date: 2009-11-06T13:38:48+01:00 List-Id: On 11/6/09 11:26 AM, Stephen Leake wrote: > "Vincent Marciante" writes: > >> package sdgfkjasf is -- or whayever >> >> type List is ... >> >> procedure jsdfks (List : sdgfkjasf.List); >> >> ... > > That's the first time I've seen that suggestion. For objects, this is how task components are matched with acceptor parameters in John Barnes's book (not the exact same thing as object names and type names, for sure, but the prefix is present): task body W is A: T; begin accept Foo (A: T) do W.A := A; end Foo; > It's interesting why no one seems to have thought of this before. My guess is that it has to do with expectations: Many readers will have seen both X and X_Type as type names. Consequently, both forms can denote a type in their expectation. This expectation would have to be unlearned and replaced with yet another expectation, a somewhat idiosyncratic one: that X denotes an object and P.X denotes a type, as you have outlined. At first sight this seems better than _Type, since P.X does not force the mixture of solution words like "X" and "meta names" from the Ada language description like "_Type". But starting from the first expectation, what really matters is X. How can we map exactly one meaning to exactly one kind of entity presuming it is the direct name that matters?