From: Anh Vo <anhvofrcaus@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Child Package Operator Visibility
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 08:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2008-04-07T08:25:50-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <02a14c57-05d3-4276-9626-113a7518f2c4@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 6b08d1d0-1896-4951-8528-e11bef196dd7@1g2000prf.googlegroups.com
On Apr 7, 8:03 am, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
> On Apr 5, 7:19 am, "(see below)" <yaldni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In fact, this sort of thing is an idiom I used to use a lot, before
> Ada 95 gave us "use type". I would declare a package with the types I
> wanted to declare, and then define a nested package Operators which
> redefined all the operator symbols on those types using renaming, so
> that another package could say "use Pkg.Operators" without having to
> "use Pkg" which would make too much visible.
>
I like your design. It is a very creative idea. This can even be
applied for non-primitive operators.
AV
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-07 15:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-05 14:03 Child Package Operator Visibility pakman
2008-04-05 14:19 ` (see below)
2008-04-07 15:03 ` Adam Beneschan
2008-04-07 15:25 ` Anh Vo [this message]
2008-04-07 17:30 ` (see below)
2008-04-13 20:16 ` Robert A Duff
2008-04-14 7:42 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox