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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Vocabulary matter: Component vs Element vs Item
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:59:46 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <ly38r1u4y5.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <op.w0sduxdcule2fv@cardamome> <ly7ggetqel.fsf@pushface.org>
	<op.w0snqmf0ule2fv@cardamome>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="d88aa8a0fafe4f7fb3eb325f8f3d97d0";
	logging-data="5358"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/0W375tUxApgAbM8bKXiHTBa4CCLcg+9o="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7wgNB3M/NtUPCLJr1lUi4sA6+pg=
	sha1:H0HWdWzyoFzyKXoUbetSHqD1DCo=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:16520
Date: 2013-07-26T08:59:46+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:

> Le Thu, 25 Jul 2013 21:01:38 +0200, Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
> a écrit:
>
>> "Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:
>>
>>> All three words "component", "element" and "item" could be seen as
>>> interchangeable in plain English (or am I wrong?).
>>
>> I have a feeling that in English (BrE) "component" and "element" are
>> more-or-less synonymous, but "item" isn't. "The solution to the
>> problem has five Xs" - X could be component or element, but not item;
>> an item is a thing on its own, whereas a component or an element is
>> one of many.
>
> Sounds correct.
>
>> So I think that the Ada Containers match this notion: a container can
>> have elements (of element_type, eeew), and you replace one of them by
>> an item.
>>
>> I see that the Booch Components have this the other way round:
>>
>>    procedure Insert (C : in out Abstract_Collection; Elem : Item)
>>    is abstract;
>
> After your note above, I now less feel it's an issue to mix both in a
> same domain (or package, to speak Ada). Remains the case you point
> with the swapped choice made in the Booch Components.
>
> May be a way to solve it, is to have an Element_Type which is a
> subtype (as a type aliasing) of Item_Type. This would allow to have
> both mixed case while having consistency between an argument name and
> its type (there are cases where it's better to simply name a thing
> after its type).

I don't think anyone should take the design choices made in the BCs in
1998 as being in any way definitive. I didn't choose Item/Elem, and I
suspect that a lot more effort went into Ada.Containers naming
conventions (they were at least reviewed by the ARG!).

And the BCs are definitely in maintenance now!