Re: on package naming, should the word "_pkg" be part of it?

[tmoran@acm.org]

>"profile" class-wide type and a "controller" classwide type. They're
>...
>So yeah, having an OO kind of syntax to say what's a primitive operation
>of which would probably help in this case.
  'class is a short and sweet way to say what's a primitive operation
of which:
  procedure p(x: in Profile_Type; y : in Controller_Type'class);
  procedure q(x: in Profile_Type'class; y : in Controller_Type);
p is a primitive operation of Profile_Type
q is a primitive operation of Controller_Type

> ...  will need to be declared in the same package, and since they're
> both tagged, it's going to be a mess sorting out the primitive operations.
  IMHO, a tagged type is just another programming construct, like a
procedure or a record declaration.  Nobody would argue that there should
only be a single procedure per package and there's similarly nothing
inherently bad about multiple OO declarations in a single package.
  There are general considerations about a package being broken up
before it's too big to understand.  Those considerations of course may
lead to a single tagged type/package.  But it's also possible to take a
set of things that make sense together and fragment them into a bunch of
hard-to-relate pieces.  Sometimes it's better to put a closely related
group of things into a single package even if the package gets larger
than usual and contains more than one tagged type declaration.
(Assuming, of course, that your programming language allows you a
choice.)