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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 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: nospam@thanks.com.au (Don Harrison)
Subject: Re: Naming of Tagged Types and Associated Packages
Date: 1998/08/11
Message-ID: <ExIrFx.3C3@syd.csa.com.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 380007228
Sender: news@syd.csa.com.au
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dev7
References: <6qnbms$ld7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Organization: CSC Australia, Sydney
Reply-To: nospam@thanks.com.au
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-08-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Brian Rogoff wrote:

:Thanks for bringing this back to c.l.a, Patrick. I was loathe to respond
:to this in c.l.e., as I remember several language wars starting from
:c.l.ada/eiffel crossposting, and I just don't care for them.

BTW, I cross-posted because Eiffel was being discussed and others 
(Patrick, in this case) may have wanted to participate. My intention 
wasn't to re-ignite a language war. I don't have the time or inclination 
to participate in one.


Presumably, you think it's clearer, in Ada, if variables and types have 
different identifiers. That may be true and the decision to require this 
a language rule may be the right one for Ada.

For Eiffel, I think allowing use of the same identifier is the right 
policy as the simpler syntax is unlikely to cause confusion.


Don.
Don Harrison   donh at syd.csa.com.au