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

["Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.acm.org>]

dhenry wrote:
> 
> However there are some drawbacks, like how to name a variable which
> should be "message type" (an integer identifying the kind of a
> message). We can't use Message_Type, so we use Message_Typ (which is
> of type Message_Typ_Type). That's not pretty at all.

I like Kind here: Message_Kind for the type and Kind for parameters and objects 
of the type.

> I have a question for people not using any suffix like _Type or _T or
> whatever: how do you name your access types? Do you allow here to use
> a suffix?

The objection is not to suffices; it's to suffices that add no value, which is 
true of _T[ype]. I personally like _Ptr for access types; on my current project 
the guideline is to use _Handle if there isn't a better name.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"I spun around, and there I was, face to face with a
six-year-old kid. Well, I just threw my guns down and
walked away. Little bastard shot me in the ass."
Blazing Saddles
40