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: 103376,2afac1a4161c7f35 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Martin M Dowie Subject: Re: Distinguishing type names from other identifiers Date: 1998/01/17 Message-ID: <6v0LMGAjwIw0Ews0@dowie-cs.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 316798272 References: <199801121523.QAA06527@basement.replay.com> <01bd2078$a449b460$41fd82c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Distribution: world X-NNTP-Posting-Host: dowie-cs.demon.co.uk [193.237.34.207] Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-01-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Aaro Koskinen writes >How about consistency with other suffixes, e.g. for constants? Do you >use _Constant? That would be way too long, because if you take a quick >look you won't even notice there's a suffix. I prefer _T and _C >because they are distinct from other words in the indentifier. just testing the water... ...how do people feel about prefixing types with 'A_' or 'An_'? the theory is that should you wish a function to return something of this type you just 'A_/An_'. It also reads a little more english-like than '_type'/'_t', although i've never really thought that 'for this_index in a_something loop' etc. was particularly like any english i've ever heard... it kind of ties in with an OO-mentality too, as (talking Ada83 here) we are using types to build classes, and data objects for objects/instances. having a general name for a type helps get this over. -- Martin M Dowie