From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
X-Google-Thread: 103376,63a41ccea0fc803a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>
Subject: Re: Naming of Tagged Types and Associated Packages
Date: 1998/08/04
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980804091455.11315A-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 377861496
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
References: <6pi0pf$df8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <uogub2jq5.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <6pirk1$iar$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <Pine.BSF.3.96.980727153418.13706B-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <6pknai$qst$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <Pine.BSF.3.96.980728084100.28778A-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <6pl5rh$elr$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <m33eblyg8t.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
 <35BF50B4.6FDCDDA0@west.raytheon.com> <m3vhogw00r.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
 <x7v3ebgbpjg.fsf@pogner.demon.co.uk> <m37m0suor4.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
 <6q6h7l$t7l$1@platane.wanadoo.fr>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: 902247828 15361 bpr  206.184.139.132
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-08-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:
> Matthew Heaney a =E9crit 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...
>=20
> 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=20
classical OO mode, is neither a package, nor a type, but combines elements=
=20
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=20
Eiffel style OO in which every module is a type.=20

-- Brian