From: Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: Naming convention for classes?
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:09:49 +0100
Date: 2004-02-04T15:09:49+01:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2769817.4d6m3TcVZG@linux1.krischik.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: slrnc21pq2.3jr.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@k-083152.nt.ntnu.no
Preben Randhol wrote:
> On 2004-02-04, Peter C Chapin <pchapin@sover.net> wrote:
>> In article <fK1Ub.87451$U%5.467557@attbi_s03>, tmoran@acm.org says...
>>
>>> Remember that a package can contain more than one type definition, and
>>> in general a package is a higher level of abstraction than any one of
>>> its contents.
>>
>> Yes, I understand... although in the case where one is trying to build a
>> "class" in the sense meant by other object oriented languages, using a
>> package to wrap up a single type and its operations also seems to be
>> sensible as well. I can see that this is a matter of debate.
>
> Why should one limit a package to contain a single type?
Unless you want the classes to be "friend"s (in a C++ sence) you must put
the in different packages.
With Regards
Martin
--
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com
prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-04 14:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-03 23:52 Naming convention for classes? Peter C. Chapin
2004-02-04 0:27 ` Jeffrey Carter
2004-02-04 2:31 ` Peter C. Chapin
2004-02-04 8:57 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
2004-02-04 11:52 ` Peter C. Chapin
2004-02-04 14:02 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
2004-02-05 12:18 ` Stuart Palin
2004-02-04 14:13 ` Martin Krischik
2004-02-04 9:13 ` Preben Randhol
2004-02-04 14:57 ` Georg Bauhaus
2004-02-04 19:01 ` Jeffrey Carter
2004-02-04 8:06 ` tmoran
2004-02-04 11:49 ` Peter C. Chapin
2004-02-04 12:36 ` Preben Randhol
2004-02-04 12:41 ` Preben Randhol
2004-02-04 14:09 ` Martin Krischik [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox