From: Jeff Carter <jcarter@CapAccess.org>
To: comp.lang.ada@list.deja.com
Subject: Re: Packages and Subpackages - style question
Date: 1999/07/29
Date: 1999-07-29T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91-FP.990729142018.6511A-100000@cap1.capaccess.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 379BCF2B.D75859BC@worldnet.att.net
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999, William Starner wrote:
> I'm writing a library that has some high level routines that interface to some
> lower level routines. These lower level routines can be used directly, just with
> more care, and more worry about changing versions.
>
> Is it more appropriate to name the lower level packages nla23.internal_blah or
> nla23.internal.blah? That is, should an empty package nla23.internal be made
> soley to hold the internal structures?
This is entirely a matter of taste and you should use whichever appeals
to you more. However, if there are many low-level packages, using
Parent.Low_Level.Whatever allows the client to "use Parent.Low_Level;"
and then refer to the low-level packages simply as Whatever_1, Whatever_2,
and so on.
Jeff Carter
"Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-07-29 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-07-25 0:00 Packages and Subpackages - style question William Starner
1999-07-27 0:00 ` Stephen Leake
1999-07-29 0:00 ` Jeff Carter [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox