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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,228dbf2f126edf08 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-20 09:17:31 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!logbridge.uoregon.edu!sfo2-feed1.news.algx.net!allegiance!news-out.spamkiller.net!propagator2-la!propagator-la!news-in.superfeed.net!news-in-la.newsfeeds.com!newsfeed.onecall.net!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ADA and return functions (Strings) Date: 20 May 2002 11:16:44 -0600 Organization: LJK Software Message-ID: References: <3ce75220@news.comindico.com.au> <5ee5b646.0205190630.237196b3@posting.google.com> <5ee5b646.0205191906.7180ac5e@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1021911406 25869 192.135.80.34 (20 May 2002 16:16:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:16:46 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24419 Date: 2002-05-20T11:16:44-06:00 List-Id: In article , kcline17@hotmail.com (Kevin Cline) writes: > dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) wrote in message news:<5ee5b646.0205191906.7180ac5e@posting.google.com>... >> "David C. Hoos, Sr." wrote in message news:... >> > The use of verb phrases as the names of functions is not >> > considered the best practice addording tho the Ada Style >> > Guide. Instead function names should be noun phrases. >> ? So I would simply name this function Version. >> >> This is of course merely a matter of personal preference. >> Personally I prefer to use the noun phrase (like Version) >> if the version is something that is an immediately >> available attribute, but I incline to Get_Version if >> there is significant work to do in obtaining it. > > Selecting the name on this basis lets > the implementation show through the interface. > Would you change the function name if you changed > the implementation to precompute the function result? I am not Robert, but if I were to change the underlying efficiency of a subprogram I might change the name to ensure that I revisited all the call sites to ensure they were making appropriate use of the subprogram in light of the new performance considerations (for better or for worse).