Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

["Vincent Marciante" <vmarciante@decilog.com>]

"Stephen Leake" <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote in message 
news:u639mop0u.fsf@stephe-leake.org...
> "Vincent Marciante" <vmarciante@decilog.com> writes:
>
>> "Stephen Leake" <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote in message
>> news:uskcsne3h.fsf@stephe-leake.org...
>>> "Vincent Marciante" <vmarciante@decilog.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> "Stephen Leake" <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:u1vkdrert.fsf@stephe-leake.org...
>>>>> This is illegal:
>>>>>
>>>>>    procedure (List : in list);
>>>>>
>>>>> So we have to add noise to either the object or the type, to keep the
>>>>> compiler happy. That's all there is to it.
>>>>
>>>> That is not necessary:
>>>>
>>>> package sdgfkjasf is -- or whayever
>>>>
>>>>    type List is ...
>>>>
>>>>    procedure jsdfks (List : sdgfkjasf.List);
>>>>
>>>>    ...
>>>
>>> That's the first time I've seen that suggestion.
>>
>> Or maybe you forgot!
>
> Always possible.
>
>> The following is part of a old discusion to which you contributed:
>
> <snip>
>
> I don't see your point; that old discussion does _not_ propose using
> <package>.<type> to resolve the ambiguity.

My point was to show that my mentioning using
<package>.<type> to resolve ambiguity nicely
in my first message was actually not the first
time that it was mentioned (ever if not explicitely)
in c.l.a.  I probably expected that seeing that
simple example would be enough to cause a mental
"click" regarding some benifits of that construction.

No big deal, as long as there may now be at least
one less "_Type" writer. ;)

(Note that I wrote alittle more in one of your
other messages in the thread regarding original
Ada rationale.)


Vinny



>
> -- 
> -- Stephe