Re: ANN: Introducing AdaBase - Thick database bindings for Ada

[jrmarino <dragonlace.cla@marino.st>]

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 10:36:26 PM UTC+2, Jeffrey R. Carter wrote:
> Identifiers such as Adabase and Tisokeywords. The "Ada Way" is Ada_Base and 
> ISO_Keyword_List. Similarly, "read_uncommitted" and the like would be 
> "Read_Uncommitted".

Ada_Base would be wrong because it's AdaBase, by definition.  It's not two words.  The only difference with "read_uncommitted" is the capitalization.  So basically the assertion here is that if somebody chooses not to capitalize enumerations, it's not Ada-like?  I'll give you Tisokeywords but I had no idea people were anal about this sort of thing (And I'll point out that I use underscores overwhelmingly, so a minority of cases where I didn't shouldn't invalidate the whole thing)

But frankly, not using a library because somebody doesn't subscribe to the same style guide in every aspect is bit over the top, no?

> 
> Really. These are terrible naming schemes. With a little thought you can come up 
> with something better. I'd probably use something like
> 
> package Martin is
>     type Field_Size_ID is (One_Byte, Two_Bytes);
> 
>     type Unsigned_One_Byte  is mod 2 **  8;
>     type Unsigned_Two_Bytes is mod 2 ** 16;
> end Martin;

Subjective.  I think your suggestions are worse (honestly, not lashing out) plus they aren't even feasible because there are actually signed versions too (so ambiguous).  Why should the type names have to suffer to avoid a prefix on an enumeration?  But we're talking about opinions here and the subjective criticism seems to be about my naming choice.

To summarize:
1) suggesting re-capitalization is okay and somebody that really cared even could provide a git pull request to speed that along
2) Suggesting to rename types and enumerations to break all programs currently using the library is a much bigger deal and what's the benefit?