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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7eaf9f2597de2259 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-12 05:17:43 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!ciril.fr!news.ujf-grenoble.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!nreader2.kpnqwest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3BC6DCEC.B20A3AC1@cfmu.eurocontrol.int> From: Ian Wild Organization: Eurocontrol X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.30 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: on package naming, should the word "_pkg" be part of it? References: <9q25ec0248o@drn.newsguy.com> <9q421v0bbg@drn.newsguy.com> <9q4a37$npd$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9q4e59018lm@drn.newsguy.com> <9q4lje$8201@news.cis.okstate.edu> <3bc6a8ad.1988649@news.demon.co.uk> <3BC6B37F.3EAAB96A@cfmu.eurocontrol.int> <3bc6c10c.1151635@news.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cache-Post-Path: ecw.eurocontrol.be!unknown@193.221.189.77 X-Cache: nntpcache 2.3.3 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:04:03 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.221.170.178 X-Complaints-To: abuse@Belgium.EU.net X-Trace: nreader2.kpnqwest.net 1002888243 193.221.170.178 (Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:04:03 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:04:03 MET DST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14382 Date: 2001-10-12T12:04:03+00:00 List-Id: John McCabe wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:07:17 GMT, Ian Wild > wrote: > > >I've not seen it mentioned yet, but you really need to add > >at least *three* new incantations: > > > > -o- To attract Java programmers you need "object.method()", and > >make it dispatching. > > > > -o- To attract C++ programmers you need a non-dispatching > >"object.method()", and a dispatching "access_to_object->method()". > > I disagree with the last one. Consider the Ada justification for not > differentiating the dot notation between 'pointers' and objects, and I > think this should be applied to any future change of method calling. But you need the two different versions to allow (and, indeed, force) the programmer to endlessly fret about the relative efficiency of a direct non-dispatching call versus a vtable lookup. > Personally, now I'm using C++, I find the -> a pain! Me too, and me too. I'd be happier if C++ had, in its early days, adopted the then-common convention of putting the verb first, followed by a parethesised list of actual parameters. No wonder it never caught on.