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

["Vincent Marciante" <vmarciante@decilog.com>]

"Stephen Leake" <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote in message 
news:u1vkdrert.fsf@stephe-leake.org...
> "Peter C. Chapin" <pcc482719@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote in
>> news:u4ope4pqa.fsf@stephe-leake.org:
>>
>>> Yes, but reading is also important. The _Type suffix is essentially
>>> noise when reading; it's only there for the compiler, not the human.
>>> So you want to read it as few times as possible, as well as write it
>>> as few times as possible.
>>
>> This seems backwards to me. I could use a type name such as X72efY9 for 
>> all
>> the compiler cares. The _Type suffix is most definitely for the human. It
>> says, "Hey! This is the name of a type so keep that in mind when looking 
>> at
>> this code."
>
> Well, you can read it that way. But the original reason the _Type
> convention got started (at least, as far as I'm concerned) is to solve
> the problem of overlapping object and type namespaces.
>
> 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);

   ...


>> In the past I used _Type as a suffix for all of my types. However, there
>> are times when that doesn't seem to fit. After all the standard types 
>> don't
>> (usually) use a _Type suffix (Character, Integer, Positive, Vector, etc).
>
> The standard is Just Wrong. But we have to live with it.
>
> -- 
> -- Stephe


Vinny