Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

[Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>]

Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> writes:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>
>> Consider it this way, if _Type is felt appropriate then that is
>> semantically equivalent to types having a separate name space. The latter
>> could be introduced in Ada at any time, being fully backward compatible.
>
> I'm not sure about the backward compatibility. For one thing, the
> Size attribute may have a different value for a type and for an object
> of the type. This means that given an object declaration "List :
> List", where the latter List is a type name, the expression List'Size
> would be ambiguous and could have a different value for the object
> List and the type List.

The definition of "backward compatible" is "all existing legal
programs will still be legal".

This ambiguity does not exist in existing legal programs.

It is a good reason not to have separate name spaces; how would we
resolve the ambiguity?

-- 
-- Stephe