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: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Distinguishing type names from other identifiers Date: 1998/01/14 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 316027299 References: <69iq42$ukn@lotho.delphi.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: 884813877 24138 bpr 206.184.139.132 Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-01-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 14 Jan 1998, Robert Dewar wrote: > ... about _Type and similar suffixes ... > > But many others (including most certainly me) think that using useless > noise suffixes like this *compromises* readability, and can be a detriment > to maintenance programmers. Any evidence for this, even anecdotal, or is this just opinion? > The GNAT code does not use this kind of suffixing routinely, though it > uses it occasionally where it seems useful. Once again, there is a real > danger in either mandating such usage all the time or in forbidding it. > > This does not prove that it is a good idea not to use the suffix all the > time, but it is one data point (I am sure other readers can supply lots > of others) that shows that the claim that if you *don't* do this, your > code will be unreadable and unmaintainable is bogus! Surely no one has claimed this. Suffixes on types are *way* down on my list of things to do to make code more readable, but every little thing helps. FWIW, I find the GNAT code I've read quite readable, but I like those "useless noise" suffixes. > So without more facts, this comes down to a matter of taste, about which it > is a bit of a waste of time to argue! I agree that it is a matter of taste, but it isn't a waste of time trying to come to an agreement on common coding conventions. Some progress has been made already; as no one suggested TIME_TYPE or TimeType. -- Brian