From: dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison)
Subject: Re: Child packages question
Date: 9 Apr 2002 08:11:22 -0700
Date: 2002-04-09T15:11:22+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4519e058.0204090711.1c3f4248@posting.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: QCxs8.1713$UJ7.829234396@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com
tmoran@acm.org wrote in message news:<QCxs8.1713$UJ7.829234396@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
> >We put all of the bindings in Claw into private packages
> >(Claw.Low_Level.Windows, Claw.Low_Level.GDI, etc.). Only Claw can with
> >those packages; users of Claw can't access them.
> But parent's normally don't call children. In the Claw case, Claw.child
> may call claw.low_level.xxx but that's calling a cousin. I'd say the use
> of child packages for private packages is a less common technique. More
I use it all the time. Its very nice to be able to split out complex
functionality into a private hierarchy of packages. Its only natural
to make them child packages of the public (client interface) package,
as they logically belong to it.
There's no problem with doing this, as long as its only the *body*
that needs to with the child (and no generics are involved).
--
T.E.D.
Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-04-09 15:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-04-09 1:33 Child packages question James Ross
2002-04-09 2:17 ` sk
2002-04-09 4:39 ` James Ross
2002-04-09 4:40 ` sk
2002-04-09 6:37 ` Ingo Marks
2002-04-09 3:17 ` Pat Rogers
2002-04-09 3:58 ` Randy Brukardt
2002-04-09 8:28 ` tmoran
2002-04-09 15:11 ` Ted Dennison [this message]
2002-04-10 23:02 ` Randy Brukardt
[not found] <3CB24F38.2D03C71A@myob.com>
2002-04-09 2:54 ` Steven Deller
[not found] <000101c1df71$eb7d9920$2137e5c0@rational.com>
2002-04-09 3:22 ` sk
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox