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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,821f293084877cad
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: st92j0gw@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Chris Papademetrious)
Subject: Re: Adding a "Project Types" layer to a project
Date: 1996/05/06
Message-ID: <4mlolb$g27@noc2.drexel.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 153355606
references: <3186E51C.250@post.drexel.edu> <31886BD1.51E@comm.hq.af.mil>
organization: Drexel University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-05-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


 Thank you everyone for your replies!

 I think I was a bit over-eager to use this "project types" concept.
Chad is definitely right, for the project I'm working on, it's better
to just use the vectors package if I need vectors functionality.  I
was trying to offer as much flexibility and indirection as I could for
the groundwork, but it appears to be superfluous now that I look at
this instance.

 - Chris

Chad Bremmon <chad.bremmon@comm.hq.af.mil> wrote:
>We have to keep in mind the "object oriented way."  Supposedly, the data and the function are 
>together.  What you have shown with your software problem is that by taking the vector functions and 
>putting them in another package, they are not available when you use the vector type later on.  If 
>you are using vectors, use the vectors package.  The indirection provided by the types package seems 
>to confuse the problem.

>I'm not saying that a "standard" types package is not a good thing.  There are times when it may 
>make more sense that you might consider using a types package.  In those instances, you may consider 
>limiting the types package to be within the subsystem you are using.  

>cb