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

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

"Vincent Marciante" <vmarciante@decilog.com> writes:

> "Stephen Leake" <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote in message 
> news:u1vkdrert.fsf@stephe-leake.org...
>> This is illegal:
>>
>>    procedure (List : in list);
>>
>> So we have to add noise to either the object or the type, to keep the
>> compiler happy. That's all there is to it.
>
> That is not necessary:
>
> package sdgfkjasf is -- or whayever
>
>    type List is ...
>
>    procedure jsdfks (List : sdgfkjasf.List);
>
>    ...

That's the first time I've seen that suggestion. It's very
interesting. The package name has to show up every time the type is
paired with an object of the same name. But in other situations, the
package name can be left off.

So this ends up being less noise than appending _Type everywhere.

Just to be pedantic, it _is_ adding noise. It's just a different form
of noise than _Type.

I'll have to try it in a semi-real project. I've been using _Type for
over 15 years, so it will take some effort :).

It's interesting why no one seems to have thought of this before. In
general, the way to resolve ambiguities in Ada is to use more of the
full name. Somehow that never occured to me in this context.

-- 
-- Stephe