On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 17:36:55 +0100, Peter van Rooijen 
<peter at vanrooijen.com> wrote:

> May I add that I agree with you that this convention exists (and I agree
> with the convention), but only inasfar as the convention is "system 
> classes
> don't need prefixes or suffixes". This doesn't mean they can't reasonably
> have them, just that they don't _need_ them.

Nope - see below

>> So the other *Exception classes in the image are incorrect.
>
> I agree there too; it is important to be consistent. IBM Smalltalk has
> avoided the whole problem from the start by prefixing e.g. the system
> exception classes with Ex, as in ExError.
>

But there is no ExInteger or ExString is there ?

See my other post for why you are confusing disambiguation with hungarian 
notation.

> Cheers,
>
> Peter van Rooijen
> Amsterdam
>

Regards,

Brent Pinknet
ex-Amsterdam