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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,dfe340a115a0bc1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-02-04 04:36:18 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsfeed.vmunix.org!uio.no!ntnu.no!not-for-mail From: Preben Randhol Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Naming convention for classes? Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:36:18 +0000 (UTC) Organization: PVV Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: k-083152.nt.ntnu.no X-Trace: tyfon.itea.ntnu.no 1075898178 12429 129.241.83.152 (4 Feb 2004 12:36:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@itea.ntnu.no NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:36:18 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0 (Linux) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5220 Date: 2004-02-04T12:36:18+00:00 List-Id: On 2004-02-04, Peter C Chapin wrote: > In article , 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."