Re: Warning: Religious naming convention discussion :-) [was: assign help!!]

[dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)]

John suggests

<<        Uint : Uint_Type;>>

UGH! No, I don't like that at all. Why choose a name for an object that
emphasizes the type of the object. I choose my object names to emphasize
the use of the variable at a higher level of abstraction.

Suppose I have a universal integer value that is the size of operand 1.
Then I would never write the above line, instead I would write:

    Opnd1_Size : Uint;


Similarly, I cannot imagine calling a variable Integer, so where you
suggest

    Integer : Integer_Type;

I would far prefer to write:

    Number_Of_Attempts : Integer;

I have *never* wanted to call a variable Integer, and that is why in this
case Integer is the right name for the type.

On the other hand, there are cases where there is little separation between
the abstraction levels of the type and its use, e.g. when you have an
enumeration type where there is only one instance of the type, as in

   type System_Status_Type is (Going, Stopped, Terminating, Starting);
   System_Status : System_Status_Type;

in this case, a standard suffix is appropriate, and I favor using _Type
as the suffix in a case like this.