Re: _Type vs no _Type

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

Le Sat, 06 Nov 2010 08:12:29 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
> which BTW, illustrates another problem. The name meaningful for the  
> client is not necessarily meaningful for the implementation and  
> conversely.

Yes. And sometime, something, when you want to avoid hiding, you still get  
hiding due to parameter names.

It happened I though this could be nice to have some names at the  
declaration side, and an aliasing at the implementation side. You can use  
rename clauses at the implementation, but this does not avoid warnings  
about a name hiding another. This is a matter if you treat warnings as  
errors.

    function Foo return Foo_Type;
    -- Will be “hidden” (at least, the compiler
    -- see the story this way).

    procedure Truc (Foo : Foo_Type);
    -- The parameter Foo hides nothing for the
    -- user, but it hides something for the
    -- implementation (note: Truc is the french
    -- for “Foo”).

Then

    procedure Truc (Foo : Foo_Type)
    is
       Input_Foo : Foo_Type renames Truc.Foo;
       -- There is clearly no more ambiguity,
       -- but the compiler don't want to know
       -- and still complains about the parameter
       -- Foo hiding the other.
    begin
       ...
       ...
    end;

May be a more cooperative compiler is an idea.


-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

“I am fluent in ASCII” [Warren 2010]