Re: Idiomatic formatting for empty package

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

marciant@earthlink.net> wrote in message 
news:7eac50d1-33d2-4872-9a3f-a438394b654f@googlegroups.com...
On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 7:37:54 PM UTC-4, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> > Or:
> >
> > package X with Pure is end;
>
> FYI, John Barnes hates this form. Best to put the end on a line by itself.

>If it is being used as the "root" of a hierarchy that has both visible and 
>private
>children - possibly the answer to you question in a different post - then 
>it
>probably is the only code in a file that just has comments/documentation. 
>If
>so, it seems useless to me to have to have a line break and repeat the name 
>in that case.

I prefer consistency to special-case rules. Ergo, I *always* repeat the name 
if the language allows that. (I probably wouldn't use the task shorthand, 
either.) YMMV.

In any case, I just read a new rant from John about "is end" at the end of 
empty packages. You best not have him as one of your code reviewers. ;-)

                               Randy.


                                Randy.