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: 103376,63a41ccea0fc803a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Naming of Tagged Types and Associated Packages Date: 1998/07/27 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 375468961 References: <6pdhfo$1br$1@platane.wanadoo.fr> <6pi0pf$df8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6pirk1$iar$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: 901579925 1375 bpr 206.184.139.132 Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-07-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Mon, 27 Jul 1998 dennison@telepath.com wrote: > Stephen Leake wrote: > > dennison@telepath.com writes: > > > > > We have preliminarliy standardized on the Package_Name.Instance notation > here. > > > I'm not sure I like it either, but I have yet to see a suggestion that is > > > better when full name notation is used. The other suggestions I have seen > here > > > so far either redundantly name the type and the package, or encode the fact > > > that it is a type in the type name or a package in the package name (duh). > > > > How about Package_Name.Instance_Type? That makes clear the "type" vs > > "object" question. > > Again, you have encoded the fact that it is a type in the type's name. I don't > need that information, and it leads to really stupid looking things like > "Command_Type_Type". The first part of your assertion, that you don't *need* this information, is certainly correct. If you can't stand redundancy, you should dump Ada, and embrace either C++, which enables you to do away with many explicit generic instantiations, or a language with type-inference, like ML, Haskell, or Mercury, which lets you do away with almost all explicit typing and still gives you static type checking. :-) :-) The second part of your assertion, that it leads to stupid things like Command_Type_Type, is completely false. I use the _Type convention, and and a similar convention in C, I've never had this problem arise. If you don't like that convention, fine, but don't just make up problems which don't really happen . If you only have one main type per package, why not give it a single letter name like T or I (for Instance, yuk!)? -- Brian