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 X-Google-Thread: 103376,9afe16648c0a7435 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Jean-Pierre Rosen" Subject: Re: Problem Compiling with GNAT Date: 1999/03/16 Message-ID: <7cl2dl$sai$1@platane.wanadoo.fr>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 455542120 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit References: <7cj6nt$rvh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7cjm4g$avo$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7ck8pk$2co$1@remarQ.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2120.0 Organization: Adalog Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-03-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: fraser@sinopsis.com a �crit dans le message <7ck8pk$2co$1@remarQ.com>... >paene lacrimavi postquam Larry 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