Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

["Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

On 30 oct, 06:08, "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter....@spam.acm.org>
wrote:
> I think that you shouldn't be writing anything until you've decided on the type
> and its operations, including their parameters.
>
> This isn't trouble. A type is usually only part of what you're creating, and
> it's important to think about the whole thing before committing any part of it
> to code. This is especially true for the visible part of a pkg spec.

That's a good note (in my mind, I was thinking about any context, but
its clear that the one you've pointed is particularly important and
should be guiding).

So let's go further the standalone concept of naming convention, and
add a seed of method, which may say “ name a type and its instance
names in primitives, all together (and the remaining should be OK) ”

:)