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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7eaf9f2597de2259 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-04 14:06:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: on package naming, should the word "_pkg" be part of it? Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 16:53:56 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9pii95$jus$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9pif1o01btl@drn.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1002228837 20444 136.170.200.133 (4 Oct 2001 20:53:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Oct 2001 20:53:57 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13744 Date: 2001-10-04T20:53:57+00:00 List-Id: You'll get a variety of opinions on this. Its a naming convention that various projects might adopt and it might have some food value to it. Consider that if you run into an identifier that has some sort of indication of what it identifies in the name, it make it obvious what you're looking at. OTOH, many will say that it unnecessarily clutters up the code and makes names of things stilted & less meaningful. There is something to that case as well - especially when a development environment gives you the capability of highlighting an identifier and requesting its definition, etc. My general opinion is that if a project adopts a naming convention, everyone should strive to preserve it for the sake of consistency - no matter how stupid a convention it may be. For small projects or reusable components I'd prefer that names simply be meaningful. For larger projects that may be around for a while, I have found some advantages to having a naming convention for objects and types, but not generally for library units. I do like dividing a project up into subsystems and having each subsystem have a short-named root package since then the dotted notation and file names naturally identify what subsystem a thing belongs to. You might as well ask what conventions people prefer for character case on reserved words & identifiers. You'll get a zillion varying opinions on that too! :-) MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "mike@nospam" wrote in message news:9pif1o01btl@drn.newsguy.com... > i've seen some code where they write > > package foo_pkg is... > > > i.e. the name of the package contains "pkg" or "package" in the name itself. > > this seems redundent to me, but may be not. what do folks think? > > mike >