From: Peter C. Chapin <pchapin@sover.net>
Subject: Re: Naming convention for classes?
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:49:06 GMT
Date: 2004-02-04T11:49:06+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <MPG.1a8aa6469b0c8cd3989690@news.sover.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: fK1Ub.87451$U%5.467557@attbi_s03
In article <fK1Ub.87451$U%5.467557@attbi_s03>, tmoran@acm.org says...
> Remember that a package can contain more than one type definition, and
> in general a package is a higher level of abstraction than any one of
> its contents.
Yes, I understand... although in the case where one is trying to build a
"class" in the sense meant by other object oriented languages, using a
package to wrap up a single type and its operations also seems to be
sensible as well. I can see that this is a matter of debate.
> Have you looked at "Ada Quality and Style"?
No, but I will look for it. Thanks!
Peter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-04 11:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-03 23:52 Naming convention for classes? Peter C. Chapin
2004-02-04 0:27 ` Jeffrey Carter
2004-02-04 2:31 ` Peter C. Chapin
2004-02-04 8:57 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
2004-02-04 11:52 ` Peter C. Chapin
2004-02-04 14:02 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
2004-02-05 12:18 ` Stuart Palin
2004-02-04 14:13 ` Martin Krischik
2004-02-04 9:13 ` Preben Randhol
2004-02-04 14:57 ` Georg Bauhaus
2004-02-04 19:01 ` Jeffrey Carter
2004-02-04 8:06 ` tmoran
2004-02-04 11:49 ` Peter C. Chapin [this message]
2004-02-04 12:36 ` Preben Randhol
2004-02-04 12:41 ` Preben Randhol
2004-02-04 14:09 ` Martin Krischik
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox