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: 2001-10-10 05:51:14 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!bullseye.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!pipehawk.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail
From: john.mccabe@emrad.com.nospam (John McCabe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: on package naming, should the word "_pkg" be part of it?
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:50:15 GMT
Organization: Emrad Ltd
Message-ID: <3bc442df.9225555@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <9pif1o01btl@drn.newsguy.com> <3BBD12F1.9BED0B70@acm.org>
 <x7vpu81jf1b.fsf@smaug.pushface.org> <3BC0B1D4.21C79A8@acm.org>
 <ud73ymbha.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <mailman.1002557530.12599.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <3bc1d137.20930256@news.demon.co.uk>
 <mailman.1002613333.31206.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <3bc3ffb5.826258@news.demon.co.uk> <3bc40fef.1827097@news.demon.co.uk>
 <mailman.1002709695.2674.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pipehawk.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pipehawk.demon.co.uk:158.152.226.81
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1002718227 nnrp-14:25725 NO-IDENT
 pipehawk.demon.co.uk:158.152.226.81
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14142
Date: 2001-10-10T12:50:15+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:27:49 +0200, Francisco Javier Loma Daza
<Francisco.Loma@isotrol.com> wrote:

>	The problem is not in naming 'Object' the types, but the extra level
>(innecesary) of qualification for the parent object name
>	GParent.GChild.Object new GChild.Object will work.

You appear to be absolutely correct in your other message. I have
chatted to my colleague about this. It would appear that our discovery
of this problem was that we were automatically generating our code
from Rational Rose which, unusually in this case, appears to have
managed to do its name resolution correctly! It's unfortunate that it
didn't realise the code it was producing was useless without
modification.


Anyway - I appreciate you pointing this out, you learn something new
every day, huh :-)

>Escecifying

What's "escecifying"?