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-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,742d218a6768a142
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Jeff Carter <jcarter@CapAccess.org>
Subject: Re: Packages and Subpackages - style question
Date: 1999/07/29
Message-ID: 
 <Pine.SUN.3.91-FP.990729142018.6511A-100000@cap1.capaccess.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 506751047
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <379BCF2B.D75859BC@worldnet.att.net>
To: comp.lang.ada@list.deja.com
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Deja Posting Service
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-07-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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