Re: Type naming conventions: Any_Foo

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On 2019-12-07 11:13, Jeffrey R. Carter wrote:
> On 12/6/19 9:35 PM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>
>> No, it would be misleading. Element must be reserved for instances of 
>> the type. They are actual elements. The type of an element is not an 
>> element, these are two totally different things.
> 
> As these are generic data structures, there are no instances of the 
> type.

Each type has instances = objects of.

> Parameters should be called Item (the library commonly uses 
> New_Item).

That is a poor choice of names. What is the difference or connection 
between Element and Item. How the type of Item is Element? Why not 
otherwise? To me the pair Element_Type-Element is cleaner than Element-Item.

[ Element and item are just same thing. Element is a member of a set. 
Item is a member of a set too, though the set is usually ordered. ]

>> I am required to. There must be always be two types in a GUI, one 
>> referential type and one implementation type. 
> 
> As I have presented here in the past a proof of concept of a GUI library 
> that uses no access types, this is demonstrably false.

Yes, I remember you did, but I also remember that it was not really usable.

The fact is that widgets have referential semantics because they are not 
computational objects, they live in the outer world like all I/O 
objects, e.g. File_Type (Note "_Type" (:-)). You cannot get around that.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de