Re: on package naming, should the word

[Francisco Javier Loma Daza <Francisco.Loma@isotrol.com>]

Ted Dennison wrote:

> In article <9pkicf02ncr@drn.newsguy.com>, mike@nospam says...
> >
> >In article <jCjv7.17235$ev2.27212@www.newsranger.com>, Ted says...
> >>
> >>>So, I do not see why one can't do this in Ada
> >>>
> >>>package Ada.awt.event is
> >>>  type ActionEvent is tagged record .... end record;
> >>>     -- primitive operations on ActionEvent here
> >>>
> >>>  type AdjustmentEvent is tagged record .... end record;
> >>>     -- primitive operations on AdjutsmentEvent here
> >>>   etc...
> >>>end Ada.awt.event;
> >
> >>
> >>You don't want to do this, because it gives all these classes complete
> >>visibility into each other's implementation.
> >
> >I was mapping the Java classes/packge to Ada. In Java, all classes in
> >the same package have the default access such that they can see each others.
>
> The proper progression for classes A and B in Ada is:
>
> 1) If A and B can't see each other's "protected" areas, then they should be in
> different packages.
>

    Well... they can be in different packages if they DO NOT depend on each other.
Say

-- file A.ads
with B;
package A is

    type Object is private;

    procedure Send(this: Object; to: B.Object);
end A;

--file B.ads
with A;
package B is

    type Object is private;

    procedure Send(this: Object; to: A.Object);

end B;


Will be 'with type' really standarized?, I hope so