From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,742d218a6768a142,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: William Starner Subject: Packages and Subpackages - style question Date: 1999/07/25 Message-ID: <379BCF2B.D75859BC@worldnet.att.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 505239022 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net 932958078 26234 208.252.196.162 (26 Jul 1999 03:01:18 GMT) Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Jul 1999 03:01:18 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-07-26T03:01:18+00:00 List-Id: I'm writing a library that has some high level routines that interface to some lower level routines. These lower level routines can be used directly, just with more care, and more worry about changing versions. Is it more appropriate to name the lower level packages nla23.internal_blah or nla23.internal.blah? That is, should an empty package nla23.internal be made soley to hold the internal structures?