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!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.mixmin.net!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: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 14:12:15 +0100 From: Georg Bauhaus User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; 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> <86pqup5xfy.fsf@gareth.avalon.lan> <86y69d3rec.fsf@gareth.avalon.lan> <82lj5c5ecm.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <79ed13b7-4c55-40c4-9f66-e30ed94e5591@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <4cd0b0ed$0$6775$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <82vd4e4n2x.fsf@stephe-leake.org> In-Reply-To: <82vd4e4n2x.fsf@stephe-leake.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <4cd15fb0$0$7664$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 03 Nov 2010 14:12:16 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: fc710936.newsspool1.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=84Fo<]lROoR1<`=YMgDjhg2Db>jfmWVF0;nc\616M64>:Lh>_cHTX3j=iolK=20<@M7 X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:16136 Date: 2010-11-03T14:12:16+01:00 List-Id: On 03.11.10 13:18, Stephen Leake wrote: > Georg Bauhaus writes: > >> On 11/2/10 9:59 PM, Britt Snodgrass wrote: >>> On Nov 2, 2:02 pm, Jeffrey Carter >>> 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); > > The reason we need different names for the parameter and the type is > because they are not in separate name spaces in Ada. So it is true that > "the language is not sufficiently well equipped for this kind of help". > That's something else the "no _Type" side does not want to admit. > > Procedure names don't have that problem, since they can be overloaded. Procedure names have the very same problem, because () is overloaded (in the syntax, multiply, and with () pair dropping allowed). Should we therefore be in favor of an _Array suffix style rule? Or the other way around and suggest _Proc for when () could be mistaken to mean array element? > So the only place a "pure syntax noise" solution is needed in on type > names. Given the above, I don't have to agree here. > One characteristic of religious arguments is putting up straw-man > arguments like this. Not at all a straw-man argument, just not narrowing the case to the favored issue. :-)