Re: Problem Compiling with GNAT

[fraser@sinopsis.com]

paene lacrimavi postquam Larry <lhazel@mindspring.com> scribavit:

>In article <m3sob6broj.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>,

>> "Class" is a horrible choice for the name of a type.  Why don't you just
>> name the type "Fire_Mission"?

>I agree.  I inherited this code, don't understand it yet, and am trying to get
>as much of it to compile as possible with minimum changes.  Actually,
>Fire_Mission is the name of one package in which a type Class is defined.

I remember reading somewhere (might have been an article on adahome,
can't remember) about a coding, uh, paradigm for want of a better word,
which created a class hierarchy using child pacakages to define names,
and having exactly one tagged type per (leaf) child package, which is
always called 'Object' or 'Class' or 'Instance' or whatever.

I tried it and didn't like it (and I didn't inhale either).  However,
what I've found lately is that the idea of defining exactly one tagged
type in each package seems valuable.  It makes packages small, and
maintenance easier.  Well, it has so far.  We'll see.

Fraser.
(change i's to y's to get my real email address)