Re: Naming convention for classes?

[Preben Randhol <randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@pvv.org>]

On 2004-02-04, Preben Randhol <randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@pvv.org> wrote:
> 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?

Oops hit send a bit fast. Here are two pages worth reading to understand
"classes" in Ada95.

http://www.adapower.com/articles/class.html


http://www.adapower.com/lang/whatclass.html


-- 
"Saving keystrokes is the job of the text editor, not the programming
 language."