Re: Type naming conventions: Any_Foo

[Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>]

On 2019-12-05 19:27, Jeffrey R. Carter wrote:
> On 12/5/19 11:51 AM, AdaMagica wrote:
>>
>> (Broadsword, Catapult, Bow_and_Arrow);
> 
> There are 2 ways to look at them:
> 
> 1. These identify the possible weapons: Weapon_ID
> 2. These are the names of the possible weapons: Weapon_Name

Either of those is itself defining a convention. It seems every 
enumerated type would then get an "_ID" or "_Name" suffix. Or something 
similar.

In my programs, it is very often the case that some object both has a 
type, and has an (internal) identifier, and has an (external) name. So 
the identifiers Weapon_ID and Weapon_Name would be suitable for those 
other types, but not for the Weapon type/concept itself.

> I would even say that those who use naming conventions such as 
> _T[y[p[e]]] are either not S/W engineers or are shirking their duties.

Ouch (I use the "_T" convention).

As an alternative to the "_T" convention, I could consider using longer, 
compound names for formal parameters, for example

   procedure Kill (With_Weapon : in Weapon)

I often use such compounds also with the "_T" convention. Unfortunately, 
I have found that this often leads to rather artificial and 
hard-to-remember compounds, and is even harder to apply sensibly to 
local variables (as opposed to formal parameters). So I go with "_T".

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
       .      @       .