From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2afac1a4161c7f35 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: aaro@iki.fi (Aaro Koskinen) Subject: Re: Distinguishing type names from other identifiers Date: 1998/01/15 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 316120179 References: <199801121523.QAA06527@basement.replay.com> <01bd2078$a449b460$41fd82c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> Organization: University of Helsinki Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-01-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Nick Roberts" writes: > Adding _Type can be a useful way to distinguish a type, as a last resort I > would suggest. I've always felt the 'size_t' introduced by ANSI C to be a > relatively happy compromise between size and explicitness (NPI again!). So > I reckon adding _T is not such a sin. But is it really worth saving the > three -- count them, THREE -- extra letters? How about consistency with other suffixes, e.g. for constants? Do you use _Constant? That would be way too long, because if you take a quick look you won't even notice there's a suffix. I prefer _T and _C because they are distinct from other words in the indentifier. -- Aaro Koskinen, aaro@iki.fi, http://www.iki.fi/aaro