Re: Convention for naming of packages

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

Le Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:17:41 +0100, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)  
<yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> a écrit:

> Le Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:22:18 +0100, Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> a  
> écrit:
>> In most cases the subprogram name tells what it does, and the object
>> parameter might just as well be called 'This'.

Finally I will either not keep this one, or else, complete it. "This"  
as‑as and alone, don't map well on all subprograms.

Fine with that:

    Print (This => …);  -- Operation
    Update (This => …); -- Operation

But not with that:

    Set_Weight (This => …, Value => …); -- Setter
    Weight (This => …);                 -- Getter
    Relation (This => …, Foo => …);     -- Expression

An solution could be:

    Set_Weight (On => …, Value => …); -- Setter
    Weight (Of => …);                 -- Getter
    Relation (From => …, Foo => …);   -- Expression

(so far, don't care about the other choice needed for "Of" which is a  
reserved word) This do not name things, and try to mimic English grammar.  
Same comment with "This". This/On/Of/From don't look like object names,  
they mimic natural language. Good or bad? I'm hesitating, and have both  
feeling at the same time.

In any case, if things needs all to be properly named, naming from the  
user point of view, ends into bad name from the implementation/self point  
of view. So a corresponding renaming could be advisable in implementation.

Ex.

    Me : constant Instance_Type renames This;
    Me : constant Instance_Type renames On;
    Me : constant Instance_Type renames Of;
    Me : constant Instance_Type renames From;

Would be rather pleasant to read and unlikely to make people shout "Hey,  
that's too much wordy! That's just bloat!".

What's your feeling?


-- 
“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