Re: _Type vs no _Type

[Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>]

On Nov 5, 4:52 pm, Robert A Duff <bobd...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
> What about operators?  The Ada RM says:
>
>     function "+"(Left, Right: T) return T;
>
> but I think that's just silly.  I usually say:
>
>     function "+"(X, Y: T) return T;

I have to agree with the Ada RM here, I like Left and Right as the
parameter names.
In justifying the usage of single-letter names for the parameters, say
as in mathematics, then you ALSO have to acknowledge that "a < b" is
exactly equivalent to "b < a" when 'b' and 'a' are completely free.
{That is, when starting your proof you could say "let a = 1 and b = 2"
just as easily, and validly, as "let be = 1 and a = 2."}

> Named notation never, ever, ever makes sense for operators.
> And if the body of "+" is short, single-letter
> names are crystal clear.

Well, except in the case where you need to specify an operator that
might not be immediately visible.
In that case it makes 'Left' and 'Right' into excellent parameter
names as opposed to the single-letter ones.

> Verbosity is good when it imparts useful information to
> the reader of the code, but not otherwise.

Agreed.