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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,63a41ccea0fc803a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dennison@telepath.com Subject: Re: Naming of Tagged Types and Associated Packages Date: 1998/07/27 Message-ID: <6pirk1$iar$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 375437267 References: <6pdhfo$1br$1@platane.wanadoo.fr> <6pi0pf$df8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jul 27 21:31:44 1998 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.0; Windows NT; Gateway2000) Date: 1998-07-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Stephen Leake wrote: > dennison@telepath.com writes: > > > We have preliminarliy standardized on the Package_Name.Instance notation here. > > I'm not sure I like it either, but I have yet to see a suggestion that is > > better when full name notation is used. The other suggestions I have seen here > > so far either redundantly name the type and the package, or encode the fact > > that it is a type in the type name or a package in the package name (duh). > > How about Package_Name.Instance_Type? That makes clear the "type" vs > "object" question. Again, you have encoded the fact that it is a type in the type's name. I don't need that information, and it leads to really stupid looking things like "Command_Type_Type". T.E.D. -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum