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-Thread: a07f3367d7,25d835bb9a4a003f
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.flashnewsgroups.com-b7.4zTQh5tI3A!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Types,
 packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without
 religious ware)
References: 
 <561e0a4a-c6c0-42db-9f31-a70f4eae1ed9@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
 <hce79b$daf$1@aioe.org> <ygeocnohy02.fsf@hugsarin.sparre-andersen.dk>
 <u4ope4pqa.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <Xns9CB636112C917pcc482719gmailcom@198.186.192.137>
 <u1vkdrert.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <y-Odnak8_-myrm7XnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <uskcsne3h.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <4af418d8$0$7633$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
From: Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:54:32 -0500
Message-ID: <uaayyop5z.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (windows-nt)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ar2OTdoPOCdOAOX5FgoLngFMz3c=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@flashnewsgroups.com
Organization: FlashNewsgroups.com
X-Trace: be32c4af50b78e197caa705862
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9022
Date: 2009-11-07T00:54:32-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Georg Bauhaus <rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de> writes:

> On 11/6/09 11:26 AM, Stephen Leake wrote:
>> "Vincent Marciante"<vmarciante@decilog.com>  writes:
>>
>
>>> package sdgfkjasf is -- or whayever
>>>
>>>     type List is ...
>>>
>>>     procedure jsdfks (List : sdgfkjasf.List);
>>>
>>>     ...
>>
>> It's interesting why no one seems to have thought of this before.
>
> My guess is that it has to do with expectations:
> Many readers will have seen both X and X_Type as type names.
> Consequently, both forms can denote a type in their expectation.
> This expectation would have to be unlearned and replaced
> with yet another expectation, a somewhat idiosyncratic one:
> that X denotes an object and P.X denotes a type, as you
> have outlined.

It's only "idiosyncratic" because it's new.

X is still a type name; this is actually a more "normal Ada way" of
resolving a name ambiguity.

> At first sight this seems better than _Type, since P.X does not
> force the mixture of solution words like "X" and "meta names" from
> the Ada language description like "_Type".
>
> But starting from the first expectation, what really matters
> is X.  How can we map exactly one meaning to exactly one
> kind of entity presuming it is the direct name that matters?

In general, Ada does _not_ require exactly one meaning for one
identifier; that's what this discussion is all about.

-- 
-- Stephe