Re: Suffix _T for types found good

[Martin <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com>]

Ray Blaak wrote:
> Martin <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com> writes:
[snip]
> A type is not an indefinite instance either, or any instance at all. A type is
> a contract specifying behaviour and storage.

But that's pretty much defines an indefinite article...it isn't an
instance.


> My suspicion is that this is motivated so that it reads better in English,
> e.g. "the buffer is a buffer".
>
> Unfortunately, this is not the semantics of the programming language. The
> semantics are:
>
>   "The_Buffer" is now in scope, and its type is "Buffer".
>
> This is more succinctly expressed as:
>
>   The_Buffer : Buffer
>
> As programmers we are quite used to understanding code. We are required to
> keep things readable *and* accurate.

I'm not sure how one is more or less accurate than the other - you
could equally have written
   "The_Buffer" is now in scope, and its type is "A_Buffer".

The important bit (semantically) is the bit about 'scope' that we both
had to hand write and which had nothing to do with the name of either
the object or the type...


> > I've used (and mandated) the "A_"/"An_" prefixes on a few projects and
> > it does work quite well and read fine.
>
> Well, there you go. Use it as you like if it works for you, but I can't stand
> it.

Yes, it is mostly a "taste" thing...but if you do wish to 'mimic'
English, then types not objects are definitely indefinite! ;-)


> --
> Cheers,                                        The Rhythm is around me,
>                                                The Rhythm has control.
> Ray Blaak                                      The Rhythm is inside me,
> rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net                    The Rhythm has my soul.

Gabriel is good...only with 1 'o' :-)