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: 103376,2078dddcdcd8d83 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Warning: Religious naming convention discussion :-) [was: assign help!!] Date: 1997/05/11 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 240824817 References: <5kjvcv$evt@news.cis.nctu.edu.tw> <5kn8ko$jcc@top.mitre.org> <1997May7.201035.2439@nosc.mil> <33727EEA.2092@sprintmail.com> <5kuf1j$17vi@uni.library.ucla.edu> <3373666A.31DFF4F5@spam.innocon.com> <3374E402.77A@sprintmail.com> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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.