Re: ANN: Ada 2005 Math Extensions, 20100810 release

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> Further I would name it
>
> generic
> package Ada.Numerics.Generic_Complex_Arrays.
>    Generic_Real_Extensions;
>    ^^^^
> or Generic_Real_Valued_Extensions;
>    ^^^^^
>
> It is always helpful to keep all name spaces clean of generic names.

Not quite sure what you mean here?

I think you're recommending that all names of generic units should
include an indication that they're generic, so that people don't get
confused as to generic vs instantiation?

In other places I've tacked _G on the end of the 'obvious' name:

   generic
   package ColdFrame.Events_G.Standard_G.Callback_Manager_G is

and I saw someone else (Ludovic?) doing the same here recently.


I think that people are going to get confused instantiating children of
generic packages, and that there's nothing like a helpful example to
clarify.

Currently I have (with elsewhere, "type Real is digits <>;")

   package Real_Arrays
   is new Ada.Numerics.Generic_Real_Arrays (Real);
   package Complex_Types
   is new Ada.Numerics.Generic_Complex_Types (Real);
   package Complex_Arrays
   is new Ada.Numerics.Generic_Complex_Arrays (Real_Arrays, Complex_Types);
   package Extensions
   is new Complex_Arrays.Extensions;

Do people feel this would be clearer if the last 2 lines read instead

   package Extensions
   is new Complex_Arrays.Generic_Extensions;

(and if so, how much clearer?!)