On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:
> Matthew Heaney a écrit dans le message ...
> >A package name is not a type name, because a package is not a type.  A
> >package is a namespace, and it exists only (more or less) to prevent
> >name clashes among identically named types.
> >
> This is absolutely true from the point of view of  the *language
> definition*. However, you *use* it to form higher level abstractions.
> It then becomes that higher level abstraction.
> For example, a paint is just a chemical product with peculiar optical
> properties, but when used in a certain way, it becomes the Joconde...
> 
> A package used in a certain way makes up a class (in classical OO mode).
> When used otherwise, it may become something else, and I 100% agree that
> different conventions might then be preferable.

Just a small point, which I'm sure Jean-Pierre understands, a class, in 
classical OO mode, is neither a package, nor a type, but combines elements 
of both. I think its just as correct, maybe more :-), to say that a tagged
type used a certain way makes up a class. By "classical OO" here I mean 
Eiffel style OO in which every module is a type. 

-- Brian