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

[Georg Bauhaus <rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>]

On 11/7/09 3:28 PM, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

>>>>>>> Cf. valid Eiffel:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>> string: STRING
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> ... -- more uses of string and STRING. Or StrINg.
>>>> Ah; Eiffel has separate type and object name
>>>> spaces. So I don't understand the original example; what was the
>>>> point?
>>>
>>> In a dozen or so lines of subprogram text, the sequence of
>>> characters "String" can refer to two different concepts, in Eiffel,
>>> when you have declared string : STRING, an object and a type.
>>
>> So the case is not important; why did you introduce it?
>
> The "String : String" part of the declaration means
> -object-named-String- : -type-named-String-
> in Eiffel. The very same word names both the
> object and the type. Characters case is important to the
> reader, however (you have mentioned GNAT's warnings).
> The writer may like to use case distinction to "disambiguate"
> the same sequence of letters. That's fine as long as you
                                   will be
> live in a single universe of formal names, like when you are
> working on the same set of Ada programs for months, and
                         Ada-with-two-namespace
> never need to look elsewhere.
    and [Ss][Tt][Rr][Ii][Nn][Gg]'s meaning is easily seen
from immediate context.