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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e382b50ddc696050 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-06 11:34:43 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc53.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Mark Lundquist" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3C0DB9D0.7184868A@acm.org> <3C0EB851.77E7172A@boeing.com> Subject: Re: List Strawman JC01 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 1LPP7-37596-Yy-271061@rwcrnsc53 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc53 1007667283 1LPP7-37596-Yy-271061@rwcrnsc53 (Thu, 06 Dec 2001 19:34:43 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 19:34:43 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 19:34:43 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17527 Date: 2001-12-06T19:34:43+00:00 List-Id: "Jeffrey Carter" 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