=?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?= =?utf-8?Q?=29?= expounded in
news:op.vlmu06olule2fv@garhos: 

> Le Thu, 04 Nov 2010 06:18:42 +0100, Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
> a  écrit:
> 
>> Somewhere on this thread, a while back, someone brought up the
>> question about why the Standard numeric types (Integer, Float, etc)
>> don't have a "_Type" suffix as an argument against such a suffix.

> May be this was me in a previous thread (not this one), I remember I  
> opened a thread about this question last year.
> 
>> After some thought it dawned on me that because the name like integer
>> & natural are the names of the [mathematical, nor programming]

> I do not know the reason, but it appears this is less a trouble with  
> Integer and the like, as it is unlikely some one will think of it as
> an  entity name.

The reason it "works" is that the "type" is applied to
many instances:

   I, J : Integer;
   Count : Natural;
   Index : Positive;

You would never even think of using any of the following:

   Integer, Integer2 : Integer;
   Natural : Natural;
   Positive : Positive;
begin
   Integer := 23; 
   etc...

Integer is just an inappropriate name for an Integer.

A "type" may describe one to many instances of it.  

The naming problem only tends to occur when you have one 
instance of a type.  Otherwise, as George has expounded, 
you can be more specific about the instance's name.

Warren