Re: Naming convention for classes?

[Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>]

Peter C. Chapin <pchapin@sover.net> wrote:
: In article <G%WTb.12124$uM2.2382@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, 
: spam@spam.com says...
: 
:> Is this a troll? You'll find ample discussion of this (naming types and 
:> packages) if you search c.l.a at groups.google.com. Some people are very 
:> attached to one approach or the other.
: 
: Okay, so in other words either approach is considered acceptable by the 
: community at large.

Unless I have missed it there is another style which uses plural
for packages and singular for types. Thus you can have

package Dates is

  type Date is ...;

and then

  Dates.operation(today, ...);


-- Georg