Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

["Vincent Marciante" <vmarciante@decilog.com>]

"Stephen Leake" <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote in message 
news:uskcsne3h.fsf@stephe-leake.org...
> "Vincent Marciante" <vmarciante@decilog.com> writes:
>
>> "Stephen Leake" <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote in message
>> news:u1vkdrert.fsf@stephe-leake.org...
>>> This is illegal:
>>>
>>>    procedure (List : in list);
>>>
>>> So we have to add noise to either the object or the type, to keep the
>>> compiler happy. That's all there is to it.
>>
>> That is not necessary:
>>
>> package sdgfkjasf is -- or whayever
>>
>>    type List is ...
>>
>>    procedure jsdfks (List : sdgfkjasf.List);
>>
>>    ...
>
> That's the first time I've seen that suggestion.

Or maybe you forgot!
The following is part of a old discusion to
which you contributed:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
From: "Vincent Marciante" <marciant_rem...@li.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 15:17:35 -0400
Local: Fri, Oct 5 2001 2:17 pm
Subject: Re: on package naming, should the word "_pkg" be part of it?


"Jeffrey Carter" <jeffrey.car...@boeing.com> wrote in message


<snip>


> John McCabe wrote:

> >    type Car_Type is
> >        record
> >           ....
> >        end record;


> >    procedure DoSomething (Car : in out Car_Type);


> > could be replaced by:


> >    type Car is
> >        record
> >           ....
> >        end record;


> >    procedure DoSomething (The_Car : in out Car);


> I recall reading articles about the psychology of understanding programs
> (sorry, Robert Dewar, I don't have references for this, either.
> Hopefully it's not just random neurons firing in my brain) that stated
> that the first few characters of an identifier are the most important in
> determining what you're reading. Having identifiers that are identical
> for the first few characters requires more time and effort to
> understand, and results in more errors in understanding.


> Although both _Type and The_ are ways to resolve the type/parameter name
> conflict, The_ is worse because it makes the first four characters of
> every parameter name the same.


> I make the type name reflect what the type contains. For example


> type Car_Info ...


> procedure P (Car : in Car_Info ...


> This is not a popular approach, though, because it requires thought
> about every type name.


> -- 
> Jeffrey Carter



What about the following:

package XYZ is


     type Car ...


     procedure P (Car : in XYZ.Car ...


-- 
Vinny




<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



> It's very interesting. The package name has to show up every time the type 
> is
> paired with an object of the same name. But in other situations, the
> package name can be left off.
>
> So this ends up being less noise than appending _Type everywhere.
>
> Just to be pedantic, it _is_ adding noise. It's just a different form
> of noise than _Type.
>
> I'll have to try it in a semi-real project. I've been using _Type for
> over 15 years, so it will take some effort :).
>
> It's interesting why no one seems to have thought of this before. In
> general, the way to resolve ambiguities in Ada is to use more of the
> full name. Somehow that never occured to me in this context.
>
> -- 
> -- Stephe