Re: Problem Compiling with GNAT

["Jean-Pierre Rosen" <rosen.adalog@wanadoo.fr>]

fraser@sinopsis.com a �crit dans le message
<7ck8pk$2co$1@remarQ.com>...
>paene lacrimavi postquam Larry <lhazel@mindspring.com> scribavit:
>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.
>
The paper is called "A naming convention for classes in Ada 9X", and
appeared in Ada Letters, Vol. XV, n�2, by (hum) J-P. Rosen.

I agree that the notation may seem odd in isolation. However, it is
easy to enforce, shows which type is the "main" type in a package, and
is consistent with the fact that a "class" in Ada is not a type, but a
package used in a certain way.
Moreover (and foremost), it is the only convention I could find which
is consistent when you use "facet" generic packages, i.e. packages
that create new tagged types from imported ones.
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (Rosen.Adalog@wanadoo.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://perso.wanadoo.fr/adalog