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: 103376,63a41ccea0fc803a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Naming of Tagged Types and Associated Packages
Date: 1998/08/03
Message-ID: <m3pveiju8i.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 377521572
Sender: matt@mheaney.ni.net
References: <ur9zlv6tx.fsf@sandia.SPAMFREE.gov>
 <m34sw6mcbx.fsf@mheaney.ni.net> <6pdhfo$1br$1@platane.wanadoo.fr>
 <m367gl943o.fsf@mheaney.ni.net> <6pi0pf$df8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <uogub2jq5.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov> <6pirk1$iar$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <Pine.BSF.3.96.980727153418.13706B-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <6pknai$qst$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <Pine.BSF.3.96.980728084100.28778A-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <6pl5rh$elr$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <m33eblyg8t.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
 <35BF50B4.6FDCDDA0@west.raytheon.com> <m3vhogw00r.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
 <x7v3ebgbpjg.fsf@pogner.demon.co.uk> <m37m0suor4.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
 <6q4eo7$van$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 09:17:03 PDT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-08-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

dennison@telepath.com writes:

> No, its not the type name. But it is used as *part* of the type
> name. Think of it as a family name.  Just like "Romeo Montague" means
> "Romeo of the family Montague", Configuration_IO.File means "File of
> the package Configuration_IO".

"The" type name or just "part" of the type name, I don't see any
difference.

You're giving me a personal model is what a type name is.  Fair enough,
that's your model.  But I prefer to stick to the model in the RM.  And
in the RM, file types are all named File_Type.  There is a reason.

In a declaration, the object name and type name share a namespace.  I
think the intent was that object and type have different names.  And by
type "name" I mean without using expanded name notation.

I don't think the intent was to use expanded name notation to resolve
the namespace clash in an object declaration.  Expanded name notation
should be used only to qualify identically named types in the same
scope.

If the designers of the language had wanted you to name the object and
type the same, then they would have specified the language so that
object and type have different namespaces _automatically_.  (This is
indeed the choice Meyer made with Eiffel.)  So you could do this:

   File : File;

legally.  But the Ada designers didn't do that.