Re: List Strawman JC01

["Mark Lundquist" <mlundquist2@attbi.com>]

"Jeffrey Carter" <jeffrey.carter@boeing.com> wrote in message
news:3C0EB851.77E7172A@boeing.com...
> > I'm not a fan of the style where one adds a meaningless word like "Type"
or
> > "Handle" to the end of identifiers to save name space for other uses.
Types
> > should be named describing the general concept of what they represent,
and
> > objects and parameters should be given names describing their explicit
role in
> > the system.
>
> I agree. And since List is a better parameter name than Target or
> whatever for many operations,

I often default to "This" or something like that, but usually I can find a
way to do better.  It seems that in your examples, you like to tailor your
parameter names to favor named association in calls, and I think that's good
practice (it's my preferred style, anyway).

> I choose to keep it available for a
> parameter name. This means the type has to have a different name.

Well it doesn't *have* to, e.g.:

    package Lists is
    .
    .
        procedure Make_Empty (List : Lists.List);

(although, that's a parameter that I would probably name "This")...

> In any
> case, we're deliberately trying out different names to see which ones
> cause the fewest people to barf.

The imagination recoils... :-)  ("Right then... next name please!")

Cheers,
Mark