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!npeer01.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: 
 <ae7fb66b-4eff-405f-b568-77a1047ec6cb@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <48e4d22d-b83d-4f1d-8bcc-d1684345c9e8@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
From: Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 08:21:47 -0400
Message-ID: <ubpjn69es.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (windows-nt)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ozqSsew77iIg3DOYqV2kVPSKZhs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@flashnewsgroups.com
Organization: FlashNewsgroups.com
X-Trace: 266ef4aec2bd6e197caa726213
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8920
Date: 2009-10-31T08:21:47-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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