Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

[Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>]

"Vincent Marciante" <vmarciante@decilog.com> writes:

> "Stephen Leake" <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote in message 
> news:uskcsne3h.fsf@stephe-leake.org...
>> "Vincent Marciante" <vmarciante@decilog.com> writes:
>>
>>> "Stephen Leake" <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote in message
>>> news:u1vkdrert.fsf@stephe-leake.org...
>>>> This is illegal:
>>>>
>>>>    procedure (List : in list);
>>>>
>>>> So we have to add noise to either the object or the type, to keep the
>>>> compiler happy. That's all there is to it.
>>>
>>> That is not necessary:
>>>
>>> package sdgfkjasf is -- or whayever
>>>
>>>    type List is ...
>>>
>>>    procedure jsdfks (List : sdgfkjasf.List);
>>>
>>>    ...
>>
>> That's the first time I've seen that suggestion.
>
> Or maybe you forgot!

Always possible.

> The following is part of a old discusion to which you contributed:

<snip>

I don't see your point; that old discussion does _not_ propose using
<package>.<type> to resolve the ambiguity. 

-- 
-- Stephe