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: <dewar.863324701@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 240812512
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>
 <3373EAB5.73A0@sprintmail.com> <dewar.863298747@merv>
 <33751581.13A5@sprintmail.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


John asks

<<Robert Dewar wrote:
  >
  > In my programming the name clash that I most often come across is something
  > like
  >
  >     Parent : constant xxx := Parent (K);
  
  Just out of curiosity, what is "K"?  "Key"?  "Kid"?  "Kludge"?  :-)>>

K is just an abbreviation for some expression which is not important
in this example.

<<It's against my religion to give up on the "Thou shalt not abbreviate"
  commandment so easily.  :-)  Where do you draw the line on what counts
  as a "small" scope?  Small scopes can have a nasty tendency to grow with
  time.>>

I notice again you using the term religeon. I strongly advise an agnostic
viewpoint when it comes to programming. Religeously inspired rules and
views tend to be a menace when it comes to programming style. I understand
the comfort of letting rules substitute for judgment, but I think it is a
bad idea to have any absolute rules (except this self referential one :-)

<<If no particular verb comes to mind, a function could just tack on
  "Get_" as a default:

     function Get_Parent
       (Child : in Pointer_Type) return Pointer_Type;

     procedure Set_Parent
       (Child : in out Pointer_Type; Parent : in Pointer_Type);
     ...>>

Well as you know well if you have looked at the GNAT sources, the
Get_ and Set_ prefixes are extensively used, but again, I think it
is a mistake to take a religeously consistent view here. The
fundamental tree walking functions Next, Prev, and Parent are
used *so* extensively that choosing any other names for them
would add unnecessary obfuscatory expansion to the code.