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

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Stephen Leake" <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote in message 
news:u8wet6ttv.fsf@stephe-leake.org...
...
>> I do not mean I'm surprised this convention is working fine with the
>> Ada standard packages set, I know there is probably a reason which
>> explains why it works in this one case :
>
> It works for the standard because people are very flexible, and can
> work around quirks like this while convincing themselves it's better.
>
> It would take less effort to use a package if all types followed the
> _Type convention. Then more people would have more time to write more
> Ada code, and we'd take over the world.

This note gave me a good laugh.

At one point, Matt had use "_Type" in all of the names used in the 
containers. There are enough people who hate that convention that we ended 
up changing it. I was surprised by that reaction: Claw uses "_Type" in about 
95% of its types (there are few cases where other suffixes made the "_Type" 
look like pure noise) -- and I don't recall anyone complaining. I would have 
preferred to continue to use "_Type" in most cases, but it isn't that big of 
a deal to me.

                        Randy.