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: 103376,2afac1a4161c7f35
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Two simple language questions (plural types)
Date: 1998/01/13
Message-ID: <dewar.884697067@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 315529749
References: <mheaney-ya023680001001981110500001@news.ni.net>
 <199801121523.QAA06527@basement.replay.com>
 <mheaney-ya023680001201981007080001@news.ni.net>
 <Pine.BSF.3.96.980112140520.25032A-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 884697233 13234 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-01-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Brian said

<<I guess I think all of the type names should have been lexically
distinguished from non-type names, so I think this is an even bigger
>>

Note that not doing so was a very concious decision, since Algol-68, which
was well known to the designers of Ada, and provided the inspiration for
a number of important features in Ada, does this (mode names as they
are called in Algol-68 are "stropped", i.e. distinguished in some way
in the source.

Part of the antipathy to this is that there is really no very comfortable
way of doing such lexical distinction, even today.