=?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?= =?utf-8?Q?=29?= expounded in
news:op.vlibn4shule2fv@garhos: 

> Le Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:19:51 +0100, Jeffrey Carter  
> <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> a écrit:
>> No, not nice. Terrible.
>>
>> "_Type" is just noise; you could use "_Global_Nuclear_Warfare" just
>> as 
>   
>> well. You should never be adding unnecessary noise to your code.
> 
> Actually, this convention appears in many places, like the ARM. Ex:
> 
>     subtype Buffer_Type is
>        System.Storage_Elements.Storage_Array (1..Buffer_Size);
> 
> And to talk about good names, you may agree _Global_Nuclear_Warfare
> does  not express the same at all as _Type does. This is even more
> clear if you  have some _Access.
> 
>>
>> S/W engineering involves putting in the effort to think of good names
>  
>> for everything in your code. "_Type" is a kludge to avoid doing that 
>> thinking.

There is a good practical case for _Type, IMO. If Buffer_Type is defined 
simply as Buffer, then we develop an inconvenient name clash:

>     subtype Buffer is
>        System.Storage_Elements.Storage_Array (1..Buffer_Size);

In use now:

declare
   Buffer : Buffer;   -- hmmmm
begin
...

Buffer_Type avoids this difficulty:

declare
   Buffer : Buffer_Type;
begin
...

So while I'd agree that "_Type" is noisy, it is sometimes the right 
choice. If you can devise a better name for the type, like perhaps 
Storage_Buffer, then perhaps that is preferred.

Warren