From: Martin M Dowie <martin@dowie-cs.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Distinguishing type names from other identifiers
Date: 1998/01/28
Date: 1998-01-28T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <oQS$jDA3j3z0EwkK@dowie-cs.demon.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Pine.BSF.3.96.980127125056.10823A-100000@shell5.ba.best.com
>Use of the type suffix makes it fairly easy to choose consistent names,
>especially for the common case where there is only one variable of the
>type. So where someone might write
>
> The_Object : Object;
>
>I would write something like
>
> Object : Object_Type;
>
>and I never have collisions between type and variable names. In generic
>code, choosing specific names (as Matthew Heaney suggested, I think)
>becomes much harder, the code is generic after all. This convention also
>makes it easy to write source analysis tools which get type names by
>simple lexical analysis, and, IMO, is easy on the eyes. I agree, it is
>redundant, but then so are comments, readable names, the distinction in
>Ada between functions and procedures ;-), ...
the 'a_' prefix also avoids type and vairable name collisions, but
having neither sometimes leads to some 'strange' sounding function
names, though as you point out they could be avoided by using a better
named procedure with a single 'out' mode parameter.
>
>> (i just remembered that the
>> very first project i worked on, spent a week just after i joined
>> removing '_p' and '_f' from procedure and function names - glad i wasn't
>> paying the bill for all the effort!!).
>
>This convention would only make sense to me if Ada had first-class
>procedures and functions. Ada doesn't, so that convention is not even
>comparable to the one I am defending. Do you see why? And do you see
>why I mentioned that it might make sense (to me) in the context of
>procedure and function pointers?
i see the point of the extensions for pointer to data objects - but in
this instance it is not tautological in nature.
its ok that wasn't an ada project - and thankfully i was spared that bit
of hole filling as i'd just joined and was far too busy reading manuals
on the project and the language they were using. from what i remember it
was a case of a 'new broom' updating the company CoP. hey - and it just
occurred to me that as a tax payer i was paying for all the naugatory
effect! :-o
>
>I hope that it was your assigned task to clean up that code, otherwise you
>would be guilty of the same maverick behavior being discussed in a branch
>of this thread. I don't like the "_Proc" on a procedure name either, but
>I think its important to observe the existing coding conventions on
>projects I join. If I worked on a project that used Matthew's naming
>style, I would adopt it even if I didn't like it.
absolutely! just i am doing now with all this 'a_'stuff.
>I'd prefer "the distinction between *types* and *values*"; I'm annoyed by
>all of this OO bullshit that is the rage nowadays. It's not helpful to
>cast everything in vague OO-speak.
>
>You got mine.
>
>-- Brian
and thanks for 'em - so long as the naming convention on a given project
is consistant i don't have too much against any of them - and i've never
actually come across a CoP that states to add '_type' etc... that will
be my next contract!!
--
Martin M Dowie
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1998-01-28 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1998-01-07 0:00 Two simple language questions Chip Richards
1998-01-07 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough
1998-01-07 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1998-01-10 0:00 ` Two simple language questions (plural types) Michael F Brenner
1998-01-10 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-01-10 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1998-01-10 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-01-12 0:00 ` Anonymous
1998-01-12 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1998-01-12 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1998-01-12 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1998-01-13 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-01-13 0:00 ` Distinguishing type names from other identifiers Nick Roberts
1998-01-13 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1998-01-14 0:00 ` Stephen Leake
1998-01-24 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1998-01-15 0:00 ` Anonymous
1998-01-24 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1998-01-24 0:00 ` Martin M Dowie
1998-01-24 0:00 ` Martin M Dowie
1998-01-24 0:00 ` Pred Nick Roberts
1998-01-25 0:00 ` Distinguishing type names from other identifiers Matthew Heaney
1998-01-15 0:00 ` Aaro Koskinen
1998-01-17 0:00 ` Martin M Dowie
1998-01-17 0:00 ` Martin M Dowie
1998-01-25 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1998-01-25 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
[not found] ` <n5rs5FAStOz0Ew2+@dowie-cs.demon.co.uk>
1998-01-26 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1998-01-27 0:00 ` Martin M Dowie
1998-01-27 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1998-01-27 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1998-01-28 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1998-01-28 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1998-01-29 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1998-01-30 0:00 ` Mats Weber
1998-01-28 0:00 ` Martin M Dowie [this message]
1998-01-11 0:00 ` Two simple language questions (plural types) Brian Rogoff
1998-01-07 0:00 ` Two simple language questions Robert Dewar
1998-01-07 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1998-01-13 0:00 Distinguishing type names from other identifiers Adam Beneschan
1998-01-14 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1998-01-15 0:00 ` Michael F Brenner
1998-01-15 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1998-01-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-01-16 0:00 ` Michael F Brenner
1998-01-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-01-16 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1998-01-17 0:00 ` nabbasi
1998-01-18 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-01-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-01-21 0:00 ` Philip Brashear
1998-01-20 0:00 ` Benoit Jauvin-Girard
1998-01-20 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-01-14 0:00 tmoran
1998-01-14 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-01-14 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1998-01-14 0:00 ` nabbasi
1998-01-15 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1998-01-25 0:00 tmoran
1998-01-25 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1998-01-26 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox