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=ham
	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,UTF8
Received: by 10.68.74.201 with SMTP id w9mr7286223pbv.0.1329042150299;
        Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:22:30 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 wr5ni15725pbc.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Convention for naming of packages
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:22:30 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <m2fweg2vx5.fsf@pushface.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> <m2wr7t3et1.fsf@pushface.org>
	<op.v9ievrwpule2fv@douda-yannick> <op.v9i36ghqule2fv@douda-yannick>
	<m2k43t2kz7.fsf@pushface.org> <op.v9j6tk0yule2fv@douda-yannick>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="dFCm8HWntFqmDIilBLqEJQ";
	logging-data="11666"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/faT2QkZ6dYzMf3okoM97Vy/adGFhjSDI="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BGNW0a2vKpJYZH/WoXc91wiasks=
	sha1:Uaq4t2de5m/XsyARfbIVHcchho4=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2012-02-12T10:22:30+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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

> Le Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:06:36 +0100, Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
> a écrit:

>> I think I would say it was bloat. One very quickly gets used to
>> 'This' (especially when using a code generator which always uses
>> 'This' for the object parameter!). But for one of the longer
>> 'functional' names I was mentioning earlier, it certainly could make
>> sense.
> Excuse me, I'm not sure I understand the sentence “But for one of the
> longer 'functional' names I was mentioning earlier”, at least I could
> not track it back (that's why I feel I did not understand).

I was thinking of the parameters in

   SNTP.User.Receive_Broadcasts_Via
     (The_Agent => Service,
      Reporting_To => S_Support.Receiver'Access);