Re: Bad coding standards

["DuckE" <nospam_steved94@home.com>]

[snip]
> is not so terrible. Given the choice of the following
> three possibilities in the GNAT compiler context:
>
>    Analyze_Type_Declaration;
>    SC3.Analyze_Type_Declaration;
>    Semantics_For_RM_Ch_3.Analyze_Type_Declaration;
>
> I prefer the first one, since anyone who knows
> anything about the structure of GNAT knows where
> Analyze_Type_Declaration is declared, and if you
> don't know, you can press the appropriate key in
> GLIDE and be bounced to the right package (or use
> gnatfind to quickly find the right package if you
> are not using an IDE).
>
> I really find the last one horrible. Lots of noise
> here that would greatly increaes the length of the
> code and add nothing.
>
> THe middle one is a bit of an oddity. It adds nothing
> to the readability, but I can see it being useful in
> a junk environment which did NOT have good navigation
> tools, since you can use the plain editor search
> capability to locate the renaming statement.

This is the most common reaction we receive when someone new enters our
software group where we have standards that require a 3 character mnemonic
as a part of all identifiers that are defined in package specs.  Usually
within a week of using this convention, they don't know how they ever worked
without it.

If I am reading some code that includes (using from the example above):

  SC3.Analyze_Type_Declaration;

I immediately know that this is a procedure that is defined outside of the
current package in something that is abbreviated as "SC3".  If the code
contained just:

  Analyze_Type_Declaration;

Then I would know that this is a procedure that is either defined locally or
in another package.  To find out which, I'll have to do some investigation.

I have found that when these conventions are followed I can move through
unfamiliar code very quickly without having to research each identifier.

FWIW
SteveD

>
> So in context I do not think this usage is
> necessarily a bad idea.
>
> Robert Dewar
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/