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: 109fba,1042f393323e22da
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
From: tmoran@bix.com
Subject: Re: Any research putting c above ada?
Date: 1997/05/03
Message-ID: <5kftur$lua@lotho.delphi.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 239140841
Organization: Delphi Internet Services <http://www.delphi.com/>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In <JSA.97May2135942@alexandria> Jon S Anthony said:
>Why was the "record" bit even there?  It's not a big deal, but IMO the
>"record" part even is rather misleading - tagged things are very
>different in all sorts of ways from regular old record types and
  It's interesting then that in Java there is *no* "regular old record
type" - only what Ada would call a tagged type.