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: 1998/09/06 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 388514931 References: <6qfp80$p0u$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35CD0A8E.21D64380@sprintmail.com> <35CEBAAF.B9B82820@sprintmail.com> <35F0CAF2.9B447FD2@sprintmail.com> <35F2AEEA.94D37DFF@sprintmail.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: 905121327 24612 bpr 206.184.139.132 Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Sun, 6 Sep 1998, John G. Volan wrote: > Matthew Heaney wrote: > > > > My philosophy is to use the name _Type only as a last resort, as it has > > a sort of generic quality to it. > > Funny, I'd say its precisely this quality that should make _Type the > *first* resort! :-) It's so generally applicable as a type-marking > suffix one might as well use it everywhere... Exactly my line of thinking too :-|. This is one of the reason's I like the Dylan convention of delimiting type names with angle brackets; this convention has the pleasing (to me) effect of making type names look very different from other lexical items. -- Brian