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

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

dhenry <tfc.duke@gmail.com> writes:

> I'm working on a "real" project and the convention we have chosen is
> to use suffixes _Type, _Array_Type and _Access:
>
> type Foo_Type is private;
> type Foo_Access is access all Foo_Type;

I use Foo_Access_Type for this.

> type Foo_Array_Type is array (Positive range <>) of Foo_Type;

I use Positive_Array_Foo_Type for this last one.

> We use simple rules, so that _Access can be either used for an
> "access", and "access all" or an access on a 'Class. If we need both
> class-wide access and simple access, we can use _Class_Access but it's
> not hard-written in our coding standard rules. This may not be
> rigorous, but we're fine with it because it's simple (when we decided
> about our coding standards, we didn't want to produce dozens of pages
> of rules).
>
> However there are some drawbacks, like how to name a variable which
> should be "message type" (an integer identifying the kind of a
> message). We can't use Message_Type, so we use Message_Typ (which is
> of type Message_Typ_Type). That's not pretty at all.

Yes, this case is a problem. I just use Message_Type_Type, and live
with it.

Apparantly in Dylan, that would be Message_Type for the object, and
<Message_Type> for the type. I like that better.

-- 
-- Stephe