Re: Convention for naming of packages

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:35:51 +0100, J-P. Rosen <rosen@adalog.fr> a écrit:
> For packages used for classes, you might consider the convention
> described in "A naming convention for packages in Ada9X", that you can
> download from http://www.adalog.fr/publica2.htm

I remember I already read something similar. You were the author too. This  
was about Mixin / Facet (both names were used). On my own side, I would  
also suggest Aspect, as the term seems more common (think about “Aspect  
Programming”).

I use part of the convention recommended in this paper, that's the reason  
why I use Instance_Type in many place since long ;) This indeed end to be  
handy in the long run, and not only for the reasons exposed in the paper:  
this also help readability as it emphases relationship of the main type  
with the other auxiliary types defined in a package. In other words, this  
avoid useless noise and add emphases to roles. Being constant is often  
good (save cognitive loads), and this convention afford consistency.


-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University