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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,742d218a6768a142
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Stephen Leake <Stephen.Leake@gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Packages and Subpackages - style question
Date: 1999/07/27
Message-ID: <u3dyaxbs0.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 505857015
References: <379BCF2B.D75859BC@worldnet.att.net>
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-07-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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