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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,63a41ccea0fc803a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert A Duff Subject: Re: Naming of Tagged Types and Associated Packages Date: 1998/08/06 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 378365346 Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) References: <6pdhfo$1br$1@platane.wanadoo.fr> <6pi0pf$df8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-08-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dennison@telepath.com writes: > Be careful. While this may be a nifty convention for ending discussions about > the U.S. constitution, the Ada language designers aren't yet dead. In fact, > they are still around and reading c.l.a. In my experience they have a rather > annoying habit of piping in and disagreeing with me when I was sure they'd > agree. :-) :-) I'll just point out that this discussion about type names hinges on whether you're a use-ophile or a use-ophobe. To the former, "X: Instance;" looks silly (or wrong); to the latter, "X: Bounded_Text_Strings.Bounded_Text_String;" looks silly. The strange thing about Ada is that the programmer who writes a package must choose whether use_clauses will make sense (by choosing sensible names for either option), whereas the client of that package gets to choose whether to actually have a use_clause. - Bob -- Change robert to bob to get my real email address. Sorry.