Re: Easy question about Character manipulation

[Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 02:09 +0000, (see below) wrote:
> On 30/1/07 01:43, in article 1170121405.6329.89.camel@localhost, "Georg
> Bauhaus" <bauhaus@arcor.de> wrote:
> 
> >> On the contrary, this *exactly* like (ISO Standard) Pascal.
> > 
> > I don't think so, ...
> 
> Trust me, I was one of the team that wrote the standard. 8-)

OK. (I _had_ skimmed iso10206.txt at some point but not iso7185.txt.
Sorry ;-)
 
> It would work just as well in Pascal if S were 1..3 and T were 2..4,
> and these are obviously not the same type.

The "same type" phrase has been a bit puzzling because it is
used in the Pascal standard, but not defined (other than via
some indirections IIUC ...)
Reminds me of the Set-equality versus Set-equivalence
discussion that has just been going on here and by the ARG
but I'm not suggesting there is more that needs to be said about
"equivalent type" versus "same type" in Pascal. :)

> (There are further classes of compatibility in other Pascal contexts.)
>