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: 103376,63a41ccea0fc803a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: doylep@ecf.toronto.edu Subject: Re: Naming of Tagged Types and Associated Packages Date: 1998/08/11 Message-ID: <6qqda4$c19$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 380169748 References: <6qfp80$p0u$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Aug 11 21:32:52 1998 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Date: 1998-08-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Matthew Heaney wrote: > > doylep@ecf.toronto.edu writes: > > > class CAR > > > > feature > > steering_wheel : STEERING_WHEEL > > > > end > > > > What else are you going to call the steering wheel? A > > direction_control_device? I think any other name would be contrived. > > I usually qualify auxiliary types with the name of the "main" type, so I > probably would have named the type Car_Steering_Wheel, and the object > Steering_Wheel. Doesn't this policy significantly hamper the OO process? IMHO, OO is about looking for common abstractions; coming up with one-shot abstractions is far less conducive to reuse. Thus, I'd very much prefer calling the class "Steering_wheel" and finding abstractions common to *all* steering wheels. Then I could reuse this class in any application requiring steering wheels. If a car's steering wheel is really different, it could be its own subclass. -PD -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum