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: 103376,1b41412c7bc28c47
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news3.google.com!out04a.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in04.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!uns-out.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pc03.usenetserver.com!news.flashnewsgroups.com-b7.4zTQh5tI3A!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Suffix _T for types found good
References: <2e9ebb23-a68b-43cf-8871-febcb173f951@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
 <4899d2af$0$19731$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
 <sbidndoc_aQH0wfVnZ2dnUVZ_tjinZ2d@comcast.com>
 <Pine.WNT.4.64.0808071536330.4692@teor1> <uwsispxj0.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
 <efded36d-c0f1-45f9-b1ac-f3575f642ad7@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
 <9LmdncTBAPGV5jbVnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@comcast.com>
 <u8wur6gok.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <37793f2b-2cc6-4aba-856e-cbfe503872a5@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
 <1xqborx4epefc.11z7g8cmj4nlp.dlg@40tude.net>
 <2259e1a3-e04c-4662-affb-dae07baa4a43@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
 <48acc905$0$24589$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
From: Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 05:47:32 -0400
Message-ID: <uhc9eya17.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (windows-nt)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gTy+gpetbfPr4bJ7PQ2y78+2V/U=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@flashnewsgroups.com
Organization: FlashNewsgroups.com
X-Trace: 8ee1048ad325bc74cf41810914
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1714
Date: 2008-08-21T05:47:32-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"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