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: 103376,9d0b383ee17c13af
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: One type for all
Date: 1999/07/12
Message-ID: <7mdobd$fu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 500248305
References: <3783E0D2.5D74243@boeing.com> <3786741C.E73F1124@hso.link.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x27.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 166.72.8.28
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jul 12 21:57:08 1999 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-07-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3786741C.E73F1124@hso.link.com>,
  "Samuel T. Harris" <sam_harris@hso.link.com> wrote:

> Types in both Ada 83 and Ada 95 use name-equivalence instead
> of structural-equivalence (as is found in Pascal).

Am I really misremembering Pascal that badly. Surely Pascal
has name equivalence, e.g. if you declare two identical
record types with different names, they are different types.
I think you are confusing name/structural equivalence with the
different rules in Pascal about compatibility of types.

But perhaps I am remembering wrong ...

I'm on vacation so my Pascal texts are out of reach :-)


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.