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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,63a41ccea0fc803a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Matthew Heaney Subject: Re: Naming of Tagged Types and Associated Packages Date: 1998/09/06 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 388347430 Sender: matt@mheaney.ni.net References: <6qfp80$p0u$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35CD0A8E.21D64380@sprintmail.com> <35CEBAAF.B9B82820@sprintmail.com> <35F0E019.DAAE4635@sprintmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 00:17:13 PDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "John G. Volan" writes: > > 2) Name the type _Type to indicate static polymorphism, ie > > > > generic > > ... > > package Stacks_Unbounded is > > > > type Stack_Type is private; > > > > generic > > ... > > package Stacks_Bounded is > > > > type Stack_Type is private; > > At one point in this discussion I think I might have grokked your notion > of "static polymorphism", but it's gone completely from my head now, and > the thread has evaporated. Is it that these generic templates provide > alternate implementations of essentially the same interface, but without > having a common parent type that they both inherit from? Honestly, I > can't understand your rationale for why this property in particular > would make "_Type" a good prefix here, but not for other types. Because this is the style used in the RM.