Re: Convention for naming of packages

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

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1554 bytes --]

"Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote in message 
news:op.v9gxmhjnule2fv@douda-yannick...
...
>Now I am seeking for something even more difficult: conflict between 
>function names and object names. This can be solved using prefixed 
>notation, but I want to avoid it to not bloat source too much. A too long 
>full name is not readable and can just make people think Ada is 
>definitively over-wordy (as J.P. Rosen explained in a paper, people tends 
>to keep in mind bad points first about Ada).

We faced this problem in Claw. One thing that often works is for function 
names to be verbs, and object names to be nouns.

>    function Object (Param : Param_Type) return Object_Type;

In Claw, this function would be called "Create". And then there is no 
conflict.

...
>But I would like to avoid the Repository_Package prefix for the previously 
>given reasons.

We chose the naming in Claw because it worked best both with people who 
write the prefix most of the time (that is, the "use-adverse") and those who 
rarely write the prefix (the "use-friendly"). But I would hope no one would 
be against using the tools built into Ada to deal with this sort of 
situation - there are always cases where prefixes are needed to eliminate 
ambiguity. So we didn't try to find naming that is completely unambigious 
(that's impossible in general in any case, since you're going to be using 
lots of packages that you didn't design, starting with the ones in the 
Standard.)

                                             Randy.