-----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

Reply via email to