-----Original Message----- >From: Pascal <blady-...@users.sf.net> >Sent: Oct 15, 2016 5:06 AM >To: Gnoga support list <gnoga-list@lists.sourceforge.net> >Subject: [Gnoga-list] Proposal for Gnoga coding guidelines. > ...
> Ada type entity is ending with "_Type" for a common type, > "_Access" for an simple > access type, "_Class" for an access to class type. > Example: ... Ugh :( Why not: "If you choose to append such a "language construct" marker to type names then they must be as you stated. That way such a marker is not mandated. Reason to not mandate such markers: - why not also "_protected", "_task", "_private" etc.? Wouldn't they be just as "helpful". I think that this kind of "style" rule was really only necessarily helpful in languages like C that did not have a strong type system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Gnoga-list mailing list Gnoga-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gnoga-list
