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: 103376,495ea95198cfe20f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Package names & visibility
Date: 1996/07/06
Message-ID: <Du4v94.8CK@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 164034316
references: <udspb9atdo.fsf@calaveras.llnl.gov> <JSA.96Jul5140611@organon.com>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <JSA.96Jul5140611@organon.com>,
Jon S Anthony <jsa@organon.com> wrote:
...[two reasonable solutions omitted]
>Option #1 is really the preferred IMO.

My preference is to avoid using the same name for two different
packages, especially when those packages reference each other, or are
used together.

- Bob