Re: Boeing and Dreamliner

["John R. Strohm" <strohm@airmail.net>]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
news:qld2gv8e6mje2k6vbni41ffcke33jf1od2@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 05:31:20 GMT, Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Richard Riehle wrote:
> > > In C++ it is perfectly legal to do all kinds of assignment statements
> > > where the result is not entirely predictable.
> >
> >I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you're talking about order
> >of evaluation, Ada has the same lack of predictability, although
> >Java does not.
> >
> >> A key difference between Ada and many other languages is
> >> the absence of structural equivalence in favor of named equivalence.
> >
> >Again, I don't know how this applies to C++, except for one case I
> >can think of - a union with record members all of which share the
> >identical set of leading fields. X Window uses this feature to allow
> >access to the type of an event.
>
> Another example is pointers. They are matched by structure not by
> names. In Ada different pointer types are different even if they point
> to objects of same type. It might look strange from C++ point of view,
> but sometimes it is very useful (consider storage pools, for example).

Quibble.

My understanding is that Ada does not have "pointers", but rather "access
types".  Further, it is my understanding that, while the semantics of access
types in Ada resemble those of pointers in other languages, the Ada
compiler-writer is under NO obligation to implement access types using
physical pointers.

Is this correct?