Re: Suffix _T for types found good

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

"Peter C. Chapin" <pcc482719@gmail.com> writes:

> Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
>>    XYZ : Some_Type;
>>    type XYZ is array (1..10) of Some_Other_Type;
>>    An_Object : XYZ;
>> 
>> In this last line, it's clear that only the type declaration could be
>> meant by XYZ.
>
> I'm not sure allowing such a thing, even if were possible, would be a
> good idea. Types and instances are conceptually quite different and
> allowing them to reuse the same name (in the same scope) sounds
> confusing. After all, a set of integers is different than any particular
> integer and I don't want to loose sight of that when I'm looking at my code.

The set is after the colon, the particular is before it. Most of the
time it is clear from context.

Except, as Adam points out, when using attributes. 

It would save all these hours of arguing over _Type vs A_ vs "use more
imagination" :).

-- 
-- Stephe