From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c39ad3e35a7690a9
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252
Received: by 10.68.135.231 with SMTP id pv7mr13709478pbb.8.1329258196702;
        Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:23:16 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 wr5ni25576pbc.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Manuel Collado <m.collado@domain.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Convention for naming of packages
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:21:07 +0100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <jhemsf$lu1$1@speranza.aioe.org>
References: <op.v9fjran9ule2fv@douda-yannick>
 <jh1ef7$26qm$1@adenine.netfront.net>
 <4f355230$0$21451$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> <jh4ev3$h3l$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <jh95ba$go0$1@dont-email.me> <op.v9k356ipule2fv@douda-yannick>
 <op.v9nyxn02ule2fv@douda-yannick> <op.v9n27emlule2fv@douda-yannick>
NNTP-Posting-Host: stiALTkbmbF0ovNjviAS5w.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1;
 rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2012-02-14T23:21:07+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

El 14/02/2012 12:51, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) escribi�:
> Le Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:18:49 +0100, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57)
> <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> a �crit:
>> Also worth noting too, is this example from J.P. Rosen, in a paper
>> explaining the OO Model of Ada 2005.
>> [�]
>> Note how he Used Ada.Text_IO and just Withed Ada.Calendar.
>
> To note quote him erroneously, I also wanted to retrieve something
> first. Here is:
>
>> A word of clarification first: the issue is not so much on wether
>> using the use clause or not, than on using full names vs.short names.
>> [�] Therefore, let's state the issue this way:
>> "should full names be prefered to short names in the general
>> case, knowing that the other convention is always possible
>> for some special cases?"
>
> Quoted from �In defense of the Use clause�.

I have a personal criteria about the choice of short/long identifiers:

    The length of an identifier should be proportional to the
    "distance" between uses of it and its definition.

Examples:
- The control variable of a for loop that span few lines can be really 
short (a single letter).
- The name of a frequently used external identifier can be relatively 
short (but meaningful) and used unqualified (use clause).
- The name of an infrequently used procedure defined in a particular 
module of a large library should be written in full (not abbreviated 
form) and always written fully qualified.

Hope this helps.
-- 
Manuel Collado - http://lml.ls.fi.upm.es/~mcollado