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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1b41412c7bc28c47
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: amado.alves@gmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Suffix _T for types found good
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 10:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <61d7b2c8-7618-4840-82b9-4b65167778cb@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
References: <2e9ebb23-a68b-43cf-8871-febcb173f951@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
	<4899d2af$0$19731$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.214.52.235
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1218043381 11755 127.0.0.1 (6 Aug 2008 17:23:01
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 17:23:01 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.214.52.235;
	posting-account=3cDqWgoAAAAZXc8D3pDqwa77IryJ2nnY
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1;
	.NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.0.04506; .NET CLR
	1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7193
Date: 2008-08-06T10:23:01-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 6 Ago, 17:34, "Peter C. Chapin" <pcc482...@gmail.com> wrote:
> amado.al...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Regarding "_T" vs. "_Type" I am convinced the former is better but I
> > have to leave the advocacy for later. Or for others ;-)
>
> Personally I prefer _Type. Yes it is more verbose but it follows the
> convention of using fully spelled out words for things.

But this is not really a thing, it's a suffix :-)

> For access types
> I have used _Pointer. As in
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 type Integer_Pointer is access all Integer;
>
> It mostly seems to work for me.

Here I am more militant. It must end in _T or _Type also. Otherwise
you loose the advantages e.g. you cannot write

Integer_Pointer : Integer_Pointer_T;

And this is also one reason why I prefer _T to _Type (and Ptr to
Pointer): because _Pointer_Type (or even _Ptr_Type) is just too long a
suffix.

(This is one case where abbreviations are acceptable. IIRC even the
Guidelines 95 accept exceptions to the long names rule. The industry
abuses this with their way too many and unecessary 3-letter acronyms,
but this is an acceptable case.)

But this is for the application types (_T). More in house style. For
libraries I think I'd rather see _Type. More conventional. But still,
a suffix.

And in sum, whatever the form, it's good to see that more Adaists are
suffixists :-)