Re: Suffix _T for types found good

[Ray Blaak <rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net>]

Martin <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com> writes:
> Ah, but "a" (or "an_") are 'indefinite articles' in English (which
> this is obviously trying to replicate), i.e. they don't specify any
> particular instance. A variable does specify a particulary instance,
> so using "a_"/"an_" for them is wrong. "better names" are what are
> always called for :-)
> 
> The_Buffer : A_Buffer;

A type is not an indefinite instance either, or any instance at all. A type is
a contract specifying behaviour and storage.

My suspicion is that this is motivated so that it reads better in English,
e.g. "the buffer is a buffer".

Unfortunately, this is not the semantics of the programming language. The
semantics are:

  "The_Buffer" is now in scope, and its type is "Buffer".

This is more succinctly expressed as:

  The_Buffer : Buffer

As programmers we are quite used to understanding code. We are required to
keep things readable *and* accurate.

> I've used (and mandated) the "A_"/"An_" prefixes on a few projects and
> it does work quite well and read fine.

Well, there you go. Use it as you like if it works for you, but I can't stand
it.

-- 
Cheers,                                        The Rhythm is around me,
                                               The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak                                      The Rhythm is inside me,
rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net                    The Rhythm has my soul.