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: 103376,63a41ccea0fc803a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Stephen Leake <Stephen.Leake@gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Naming of Tagged Types and Associated Packages
Date: 1998/07/27
Message-ID: <uogub2jq5.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 375383724
References: <ur9zlv6tx.fsf@sandia.SPAMFREE.gov>
 <m34sw6mcbx.fsf@mheaney.ni.net> <6pdhfo$1br$1@platane.wanadoo.fr>
 <m367gl943o.fsf@mheaney.ni.net> <6pi0pf$df8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-07-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

dennison@telepath.com writes:

> In article <m367gl943o.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>,
>   Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote:
> 
> > The "real" name of the type is the identifier used in the type
> > declaration, never the name of the enclosing package.
> 
> No, its the package name PLUS the identifier used in the type declaration.
> Unless, of course you throw use clauses everywhere in your code. If you do
> that then it doesn't matter much what convention you use, I won't be able to
> read your code.
> 
> We have preliminarliy standardized on the Package_Name.Instance notation here.
> I'm not sure I like it either, but I have yet to see a suggestion that is
> better when full name notation is used. The other suggestions I have seen here
> so far either redundantly name the type and the package, or encode the fact
> that it is a type in the type name or a package in the package name (duh).

How about Package_Name.Instance_Type? That makes clear the "type" vs
"object" question.

-- Stephe