Naming convention for classes?

[Peter C. Chapin <pchapin@sover.net>]

I'm a C++ person learning my way around Ada. Naturally I tend to think 
about things in a C++ way and that leads me to various questions. I 
notice, for example, that there seems to be two (at least) somewhat 
different ways to name classes in Ada. The first way gives the class 
name to a package producing the following effect.

package Date is
  type Object is private;

  procedure Advance(Item : in out Object; Step : in Integer);
  ...
end Date;

The I can create Date objects by first withing Date and then doing

  Today : Date.Object;
  ...
  Date.Advance(Today, 100);

Another approach would be to give the type itself the "nice" name and 
regard the package name as "noise" used to avoid name clashes in large 
programs. For example

package My_Library is
  type Date is private;

  procedure Advance(Item : in out Date; Step : in Integer);
  ...
end My_Library;

Then I might with My_Library and use My_Library and do

  Today : Date;
  ...
  Advance(Today, 100);

The second approach seems natural but I notice that the Charles 
component library uses the first approach and it seems to work well in 
that case. For example, in my program I do

   package Vector is new Charles.Vectors.Unbounded(
     Index_Type => Natural, Element_Type => Storage_Type);

Then I declare things to be Vector.Container_Type and use procedures 
like Vector.Append and Vector.Insert, etc. Now I'm building my own 
abstract type and I find myself waffling... should I use my intended 
name for the package or for a type inside the package? Is there some 
kind of "best practice" for this? Or am I off in the weeds here?

Thanks!

Peter