From: Stephen Leake <Stephen.Leake@gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Packages and Subpackages - style question
Date: 1999/07/27
Date: 1999-07-27T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <u3dyaxbs0.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 379BCF2B.D75859BC@worldnet.att.net
William Starner <billeug@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> I'm writing a library that has some high level routines that interface to some
> lower level routines. These lower level routines can be used directly, just with
> more care, and more worry about changing versions.
>
> Is it more appropriate to name the lower level packages nla23.internal_blah or
> nla23.internal.blah? That is, should an empty package nla23.internal be made
> soley to hold the internal structures?
I vote for the "empty" package. At some point, you may find something
that belongs there, like exceptions or constants that are common. A
version number would be a good candidate.
-- Stephe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-07-27 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-07-25 0:00 Packages and Subpackages - style question William Starner
1999-07-27 0:00 ` Stephen Leake [this message]
1999-07-29 0:00 ` Jeff Carter
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox