Re: Naming conventions

["SteveD" <nospam_steved94@attbi.com>]

"Ryan Tarpine" <rtarpine@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3D3F58F4.9050305@hotmail.com...
> Coming from C++, what I used to think of as a class (a type and its
> associated methods) is now roughly equivalent to a package....

A package is closer to a C++ namespace than a class.  A C++ class
corresponds roughly to an Ada tagged type with its associated procedures and
functions.

>  Whenever I try to name a package, I use what I normally think of as the
type
> itself.  For example, I would put a vector type in a package Vector or a
> regular expression type in a package Regular_Expression.  However, once
> I name the package, I am at a loss for what to call the data type inside.
>
> I've been appending '_Type' to the package names, making names like
> Vector_Type, but I don't think that is the Right Thing(TM).  I've been
> skimming the style guides (which I heartily recommend all newbies to
> do), and I've seen a little bit of calling the type simply Instance or
> Object.  When used with the package name this looks nice, such as
> Vector.Instance.  What do the Ada gurus normally do for this? :)

If you want to follow this sort of convention, perhaps you should use:

package Vector_Package is

  type Vector_Type is abstract tagged null record with private;

  ...

etc.

I'm sure you'll get all kinds of feedback that this convention is bad, but
if
you're consistant and make things readable it really doesn't matter what
conventions you follow.

SteveD