* Packages and Subpackages - style question
@ 1999-07-25 0:00 William Starner
1999-07-27 0:00 ` Stephen Leake
1999-07-29 0:00 ` Jeff Carter
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: William Starner @ 1999-07-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
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?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Packages and Subpackages - style question
1999-07-25 0:00 Packages and Subpackages - style question William Starner
@ 1999-07-27 0:00 ` Stephen Leake
1999-07-29 0:00 ` Jeff Carter
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Leake @ 1999-07-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
William Starner <billeug@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> 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?
I vote for the "empty" package. At some point, you may find something
that belongs there, like exceptions or constants that are common. A
version number would be a good candidate.
-- Stephe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Packages and Subpackages - style question
1999-07-25 0:00 Packages and Subpackages - style question William Starner
1999-07-27 0:00 ` Stephen Leake
@ 1999-07-29 0:00 ` Jeff Carter
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Carter @ 1999-07-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: comp.lang.ada
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999, William Starner wrote:
> 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?
This is entirely a matter of taste and you should use whichever appeals
to you more. However, if there are many low-level packages, using
Parent.Low_Level.Whatever allows the client to "use Parent.Low_Level;"
and then refer to the low-level packages simply as Whatever_1, Whatever_2,
and so on.
Jeff Carter
"Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1999-07-29 0:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1999-07-25 0:00 Packages and Subpackages - style question William Starner
1999-07-27 0:00 ` Stephen Leake
1999-07-29 0:00 ` Jeff Carter
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox