Re: Problem Compiling with GNAT

[fraser@sinopsis.com (Fraser Wilson)]

paene lacrimavi postquam Jean-Pierre Rosen scribavit:

>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.

Well, that was probably the problem I had.  At the time I was picking
coding styles pseudo-randomly, until I found one that fit.  It tends to
make the result somewhat, well, mish-mashed.

>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.

I'm not sure I understand this --- what you're saying is that the generic
can't possibly provide a meaningful type name, because unlike a standard
type that's declared in a generic package, the generic itself doesn't
know exactly what the type is going to do; it merely adds some functionality
to it.  In this case, fair call.

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