Re: Type naming conventions: Any_Foo

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

On 2019-12-07 12:19, Jeffrey R. Carter wrote:
> On 12/6/19 10:55 PM, Niklas Holsti wrote:
>> On 2019-12-06 22:11, Jeffrey R. Carter wrote:
>>> On 12/5/19 10:33 PM, Niklas Holsti wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Weapon : Weapon_Id;
>>>>
>>>> The variable Weapon does not represent a Weapon; it represents an 
>>>> identifier of a Weapon, so the name Weapon is IMO a little misleading.
>>>
>>> Obviously there are no weapons in the S/W; there are only bit 
>>> patterns that you have decided to interpret in various ways. But if 
>>> you're modeling the problem space and it contains something called 
>>> Weapon, then your software had better have something named Weapon it 
>>> in, too.
>>
>> Agreed.
> 
> And obviously the thing in the software named Weapon contains a bit 
> pattern that you interpret as identifying the actual Weapon in the 
> problem space.

Yes, there may be some "identifier" bits, if (for some reason) Weapons 
need identifiers.

> In other words, Weapon contains a Weapon identifier, 

Possibly, but the internal model of a weapon usually contains much more 
than just an identifier: it contains bits that define the properties and 
state of the weapon.

> and the declaration is not misleading at all.

If all the program knows of a weapon is its identifier (Weapon_Id), your 
approach is tolerable (but I still don't like it). If the program has 
more knowledge of the weapons, so that there is a type Weapon in 
addition to the type Weapon_Id, I remain firm in my view.

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