Re: Beginners question: Compound types, how-to?

[Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>]

"Vinzent Hoefler" <nntp-2010-10@t-domaingrabbing.de> writes:

> On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 18:01:55 +0100, Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote:
>
>> On 03.11.10 17:56, Warren wrote:
>>
>>> There is a good practical case for _Type, IMO. If Buffer_Type is defined
>>> simply as Buffer, then we develop an inconvenient name clash:
>>>
>>>>     subtype Buffer is
>>>>        System.Storage_Elements.Storage_Array (1..Buffer_Size);
>>>
>>> In use now:
>>>
>>> declare
>>>    Buffer : Buffer;   -- hmmmm
>>> begin
>>
>> What role does the object named Buffer play?
>>
>> It is a buffer, yes. Is it different from other buffers?
>
> I now own it, thus it's "My_Buffer", of course. ;)
>
>> How?  What lives in it?  How does the program use it?
>>
>> I believe answering these questions leads to a better name.
>
> Yes, things like "Message_Buffer" are usually better here. Even a
> generic name like "Read_Buffer" could help somewhat.

Notice that the "find a better name" camp always suggests _several_
names, and each person suggests _different_ ones. That means there is no
common solution, and the resulting code will be confusing, and subject
to endless arguments about "the right name" in code reviews.

At least with _Type, the solution is very clear.

So it takes less time to write good code using the _Type convention :).

(Ok, it's late, and I'm tired, and this is more fun than real work :)

-- 
-- Stephe