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: 103376,e55245590c829bef
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 01:46:37 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Beginners question: Compound types, how-to?
References: <86wroy58ff.fsf@gareth.avalon.lan>
 <iale5p$2f6$1@tornado.tornevall.net> <86pqup5xfy.fsf@gareth.avalon.lan>
 <becbd7a4-89e6-4d81-b7d8-7d18ac75c1f9@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
 <86y69d3rec.fsf@gareth.avalon.lan> <ian4b2$p9h$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
 <82lj5c5ecm.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <iapnmm$p5j$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
 <79ed13b7-4c55-40c4-9f66-e30ed94e5591@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <79ed13b7-4c55-40c4-9f66-e30ed94e5591@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4cd0b0ed$0$6775$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 03 Nov 2010 01:46:37 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 155f0882.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=iRlB4<XenFJj7E:bke<5HFMcF=Q^Z^V3H4Fo<]lROoRA8kF<OcfhCOKd875<NSW4BNPCY\c7>ejVH=gjIi6TNbF@TFCg@ioEZXH
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:16123
Date: 2010-11-03T01:46:37+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 11/2/10 9:59 PM, Britt Snodgrass wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2:02 pm, Jeffrey Carter<spam.jrcarter....@spam.not.acm.org>
> wrote:
>> On 11/02/2010 01:17 AM, Stephen Leake wrote:
>>
>>> _Type vs "waste time thinking up other names" is a religious argument
>>> (guess which side I'm on?); it has never been settled before, and won't
>>> be settled this time.
>>
>> Those who think the essential S/W-engineering activity of choosing good names is
>> a waste of time are clearly not S/W engineers.
>>
>
> Bah. Pick a good type name and then suffix it with "_Type". That makes
> it an even better type name.

Arguing from suitably chosen context about the suffix
being helpful (and thus implying that the language is not
sufficiently well equipped for this kind of help) one might
be tempted to write

   procedure Attack_Proc (Weapon_Parm_Name : Weapon_Type);

But consider how the body looks.
And then consider what calls must look like.

Sill, a different grammar(!) might lead to better visual
distinction. (Which words are types' names etc.)
A grammatical approach seems a lot better to me than
injecting a mechanical sublanguage into identifiers!!!

Please don't mistake this suggestion to be in favor
of separate namespaces for types and other things.