From: AdaMagica <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de>
Subject: Re: extended membership tests
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 00:03:40 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2011-04-01T00:03:40-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0a58c4e0-f4b5-4cab-8aa7-7ab39337664e@p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 9e379bf0-ade3-4694-83d3-60d99f54bdf5@q36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com
On 1 Apr., 08:33, Dan <d...@irvine.com> wrote:
> Yannick suggested making X in Y illegal, when X and Y have the same
> type, to avoid the
> confusion. I agree with that suggestion.
I also agree.
I do not see why we need choice_expression and choice_relation RM
4.4(2.1/3,2.2/3).
Wouldn't simple_expression suffice in (3.2/3)?
membership_choice ::= simple_expression | range | subtype_mark
Are there any sensible uses for (boolean) choice_relations? I might
imagine some use of choice_expressions for modular types.
X in A > B and C | D .. E | Subrange ??? doesn't look very sensible
to me
Examples please.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-01 7:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-31 7:04 extended membership tests Dan
2011-03-31 7:34 ` AdaMagica
2011-03-31 7:55 ` Dan
2011-03-31 7:58 ` Dan
2011-03-31 8:05 ` Ludovic Brenta
2011-03-31 9:28 ` AdaMagica
2011-03-31 14:33 ` Robert A Duff
2011-03-31 16:28 ` extended membership tests (branch) Georg Bauhaus
2011-03-31 17:58 ` Robert A Duff
2011-03-31 18:54 ` Adam Beneschan
2011-03-31 21:08 ` Georg Bauhaus
2011-03-31 21:10 ` Randy Brukardt
2011-04-01 5:14 ` extended membership tests AdaMagica
2011-04-01 6:33 ` Dan
2011-04-01 7:03 ` AdaMagica [this message]
2011-04-01 9:56 ` stefan-lucks
2011-04-01 15:11 ` Adam Beneschan
2011-04-02 1:22 ` Randy Brukardt
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox