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: 103376,990196a3d5e5eb5e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-09 08:11:22 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Child packages question Date: 9 Apr 2002 08:11:22 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <4519e058.0204090711.1c3f4248@posting.google.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.115.221.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1018365082 14740 127.0.0.1 (9 Apr 2002 15:11:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Apr 2002 15:11:22 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22271 Date: 2002-04-09T15:11:22+00:00 List-Id: tmoran@acm.org wrote in message news:... > >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