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-Thread: a07f3367d7,25d835bb9a4a003f
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.flashnewsgroups.com-b7.4zTQh5tI3A!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Types,
 packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without
 religious ware)
References: 
 <561e0a4a-c6c0-42db-9f31-a70f4eae1ed9@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
 <hce79b$daf$1@aioe.org> <ygeocnohy02.fsf@hugsarin.sparre-andersen.dk>
 <u4ope4pqa.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <Xns9CB636112C917pcc482719gmailcom@198.186.192.137>
 <u1vkdrert.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <y-Odnak8_-myrm7XnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <uskcsne3h.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <QaWdnfOsAYiw72nXnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <u639mop0u.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <c4Cdnet0zaMxw2XXnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@earthlink.com>
From: Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:51:04 -0500
Message-ID: <uaayu24yf.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (windows-nt)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tEiVw2dWqIyPi+ou9QhLIaILQzg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@flashnewsgroups.com
Organization: FlashNewsgroups.com
X-Trace: a727b4af91b3de197caa715473
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8066
Date: 2009-11-10T02:51:04-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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

>>>> 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.
>
> My point was to show that my mentioning using
> <package>.<type> to resolve ambiguity nicely
> in my first message was actually not the first
> time that it was mentioned (ever if not explicitely)
> in c.l.a.  

I still don't get it. If it was not mentioned explicitly, how was it
mentioned? If I had seen that suggestion before, I might be using it
now.

> No big deal, as long as there may now be at least
> one less "_Type" writer. ;)

Not likely, after 15 years of habit forming.

-- 
-- Stephe