Re: What do you think about this?

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

Laurent <lutgenl@icloud.com> writes:

> On Saturday, 27 June 2015 20:54:26 UTC+2, Simon Wright  wrote:
>> Laurent <lutgenlaticloud.com> writes:
>> 
>> > It sucks that renaming function Make_Antibiotique... to function
>> > Antibiotique ... doesn't work because I get conflicts between the
>> > Type Antibiotique and the function. So what is the recommendation
>> > for naming in this case.
>> >
>> > package Antibiotiques...
>> >
>> > type Antibiotique is private;
>> >
>> > function Make_Antibiotique... return Antibiotique;
>> >
>> > end Antibiotiques;
>> 
>> I'd just call it Make. The package name disambiguates.
>
> Hm the opposite of the messages before. Who is right then? Or just a
> matter of taste?

A matter of taste, really.

I had a colleague who was writing a package something like

   package Communication is
      type Communication_Message is private;
      procedure Send_Communication_Message
        (Communication_Message_To_Be_Sent : Communication_Message;
         ...);

only the names were longer (so long that the spec couldn't possibly be
fitted into 79 columns, which gave style warnings, which he disabled by
pragma Warnings (Off), so that other significant warnings were disabled
too).

I would have written

   package Communication is
      type Message is private;
      procedure Send (M : Message; ...);

which is, I think, much clearer.

Grady Booch would have named the parameter The_Message.