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,c3a7c1845ec5caf9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Equality operator overloading in ADA 83
Date: 1997/04/26
Message-ID: <dewar.862079014@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 237566501
References: <01bc4e9b$ac0e7fa0$72041dc2@lightning>
 <335F5971.6375@elca-matrix.ch> <E95y9L.AK1@world.std.com>
 <dewar.861930356@merv> <E973qr.89t@world.std.com>
 <01bc5244$315f1560$28f982c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Nick says

<<As to the property of mutual exclusion - this is the 'essence' of the case
statement - the implementation would probably have to test ...>>

This is only 50% of the essence. The other half is full coverage, which can
have no meaning for extended case statements - so I think it is a bad idea
to try to extend case statements to non-discrete types.