Re: Naming of Tagged Types and Associated Packages

[Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org>]

Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> writes:

> I'll just point out that this discussion about type names hinges on
> whether you're a use-ophile or a use-ophobe.  To the former,
> "X: Instance;" looks silly (or wrong); to the latter,
> "X: Bounded_Text_Strings.Bounded_Text_String;" looks silly.
> 
> The strange thing about Ada is that the programmer who writes a package
> must choose whether use_clauses will make sense (by choosing sensible
> names for either option), whereas the client of that package gets to
> choose whether to actually have a use_clause.

Funny you should bring that up.  The more I think about it, the more I
think that use-semantics should be the default when you with a package.
In other words, the language should have been designed so that use
clauses weren't even necessary.

Your observation explains why some programmers object to the plural
package name convention, saying "Oh but that name just duplicates the
type name."  They must be use-a-phobics.

I'm a use-a-phile, so of course I'd use Bounded_Text_Strings, and
wouldn't dream of writing anything but

declare
   X : Bounded_Text_String;
begin

If you see a declaration like that, then there's a very high probability
that type Bounded_Text_String was declared in package
Bounded_Text_Strings, which is of course the reason for naming the
package that way.

Some shops give themselves rules like Thou Shalt Not Use Use, but that
rule is misguided.  The real rule should be, Thou Shall Make It Easy To
Trace A Type Back To The Package It's Declared In.  By naming the
package the plural of the type name, then the latter rule is satisfied,
in spite of use being used.