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

["Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

On 29 oct, 19:11, Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauh...@futureapps.de> wrote:
> If you can't find a name for an object, ask more questions
> about it, its use, its relations, the programmer, its purpose,
> his purpose, etc:
> What is the role of the object?  Does the role lead to a name?
> It might not, at first.  For example, the role
> can be given as "just any object" of the type.  I would not be
> comfortable with such an answer (though, for practical reasons,
> I live with it):
> The person who says "just any object" should be able to give
> a reason why "just any object" is sufficient.  The reason,
> and in particular stating the reason using words, increases the
> likelyhood of finding a name expressing the reason.
> Or the reaons leads to other ideas which, again, lead to a
> name.

(just about this sole point, the remaining later)

An example trap (to me at least) : what about a type which would seems
obviously named Size and a parameter which seems obviously named
Size ? X would surely not be OK, neither Item.

An idea may be to get a more or less close synonymous (like Count...
not very good) for the parameter for which one may naturally be
tempted to name Size. But this seems (and is) a work-around, and if
the word “ work-around ” really legitimately applies on that
situation, this means there is a trouble (not natural, at least). Why
the work around will probably applied on the parameter ? Because the
parameter comes later when the type definition is already introduced
(in the worst case, it may be tempting to change the type name). This
latter detail makes us to come to another aspect of the trouble :
choosing a practicable type name, may requires an amount of prediction
over what instance names may be.

Note : Triggering this, I'm not attempting to advocate for the _Type
or other _Xxx suffix convention, as I honestly find that using a
simple noun as a type name, is smart and elegant in many ways. I'm
just attempting to evaluate both cases in a formal and long life
prediction way.

I'm short with this reply, but I will be back to reply to other
interesting stuff written back here by peoples.