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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,25d835bb9a4a003f
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hibou57_=28Yannick_Duch=EAne=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions
	question (without religious ware)
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 05:40:51 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <ed6eb320-95b1-4e44-9435-222de426402e@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <561e0a4a-c6c0-42db-9f31-a70f4eae1ed9@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
	<hce79b$daf$1@aioe.org> <ygeocnohy02.fsf@hugsarin.sparre-andersen.dk>
	<u4ope4pqa.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <Xns9CB636112C917pcc482719gmailcom@198.186.192.137>
	<a8e81294-7629-4dc4-be69-b470d295033f@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.75.149.67
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1257082851 29347 127.0.0.1 (1 Nov 2009 13:40:51
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 13:40:51 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.75.149.67;
	posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
	fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8935
Date: 2009-11-01T05:40:51-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

This one does not give a lot of reasons to rejoice :
http://p.einarsen.no/category/understanding-code/

It simply ends with a =93 But do keep in mind that the research is still
a bit patchy, and this is mostly an argument without empirical data. =94