From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Unconstrained Objects
Date: 1995/04/06
Date: 1995-04-06T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dewar.797220409@schonberg> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3lt22a$18p@maple.enet.net
Dan is wrong on several points. Most notably, it is perfectly legal for
a compiler to use a represetnation for a subtype that is different from
the basee type, and in certain cases (constrained subtypes of unconstrained
variant records with default discriminants), it is a common implementation.
But some compilers will even use a different representation for subtypes
of integer, and this is perfectly legitimate.
prev parent reply other threads:[~1995-04-06 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1995-03-31 0:00 Unconstrained Objects Eric Shulman
1995-04-04 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1995-04-06 0:00 ` HUMPHREY_TERRY
1995-04-06 0:00 ` Cyrille Comar
1995-04-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1995-04-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
[not found] ` <3lt22a$18p@maple.enet.net>
1995-04-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox