Re: Convention for naming of packages

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:

> [Note: Claw actually uses "Shape_Type" for type names, so the above
> actually looks like (using a decent name for the objec):
>     Triangle : Shapes.Shape_Type;

I feel that does rather depend on the name's scope and how many other
names are declared in that scope.

> One thing I neglected to mention in my last post is that under no
> circumstances should the name of the type appear in (OO) subprogram
> names.  The object parameter to the subprogram should be named well
> enough to give the content for the "use-friendly" (and if it is not,
> the client has more problems than we can help them with), and the
> package name will give the context for the "use-adverse".

In most cases the subprogram name tells what it does, and the object
parameter might just as well be called 'This'. As for the other
parameters .. my style recommendations, which may seem a bit odd but
were derived from experience (of others' sins!) are

   As a matter of style, always name parameters from the point of view
   of the operation's caller, not from your point of view as
   implementer. Try to make the names read well, especially if the
   caller uses named parameter association:

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

   Don't use long parameter names that repeat the type name. There is
   plenty of context available to the reader, and you make it more
   difficult than it need be to follow coding standards that ask for
   limits on line lengths.

(neither parameter is of a tagged type).