Re: Naming conventions

[Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>]

Ryan Tarpine <rtarpine@hotmail.com> writes:

> Coming from C++, what I used to think of as a class (a type and its
> associated methods) is now roughly equivalent to a package.  Whenever I
> try to name a package, I use what I normally think of as the type
> itself.  For example, I would put a vector type in a package Vector or a
> regular expression type in a package Regular_Expression.  However, once
> I name the package, I am at a loss for what to call the data type inside.

Welcome to the club :).

> I've been appending '_Type' to the package names, making names like
> Vector_Type, but I don't think that is the Right Thing(TM). 

I would name the type using _Type:

package Vector is

    type Vector_Type is ... ;
end Vector;

That's a nice, simple convention. You don't have to think about it.

However, if you don't use 'use', it looks a little redundant. In that
case, just name the type 'T':

package Vector is
   type T is ...;
end Vector;

with Vector;
package Client is

    Velocity : Vector.T;

end Client;

Have fun!


-- 
-- Stephe