From: Preben Randhol <randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@pvv.org>
Subject: Re: Naming convention for classes?
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:36:18 +0000 (UTC)
Date: 2004-02-04T12:36:18+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <slrnc21pq2.3jr.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@k-083152.nt.ntnu.no> (raw)
In-Reply-To: MPG.1a8aa6469b0c8cd3989690@news.sover.net
On 2004-02-04, Peter C Chapin <pchapin@sover.net> wrote:
> In article <fK1Ub.87451$U%5.467557@attbi_s03>, tmoran@acm.org says...
>
>> Remember that a package can contain more than one type definition, and
>> in general a package is a higher level of abstraction than any one of
>> its contents.
>
> Yes, I understand... although in the case where one is trying to build a
> "class" in the sense meant by other object oriented languages, using a
> package to wrap up a single type and its operations also seems to be
> sensible as well. I can see that this is a matter of debate.
Why should one limit a package to contain a single type?
--
"Saving keystrokes is the job of the text editor, not the programming
language."
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-04 12:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-03 23:52 Naming convention for classes? Peter C. Chapin
2004-02-04 0:27 ` Jeffrey Carter
2004-02-04 2:31 ` Peter C. Chapin
2004-02-04 8:57 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
2004-02-04 11:52 ` Peter C. Chapin
2004-02-04 14:02 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
2004-02-05 12:18 ` Stuart Palin
2004-02-04 14:13 ` Martin Krischik
2004-02-04 9:13 ` Preben Randhol
2004-02-04 14:57 ` Georg Bauhaus
2004-02-04 19:01 ` Jeffrey Carter
2004-02-04 8:06 ` tmoran
2004-02-04 11:49 ` Peter C. Chapin
2004-02-04 12:36 ` Preben Randhol [this message]
2004-02-04 12:41 ` Preben Randhol
2004-02-04 14:09 ` Martin Krischik
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox