From: ANH_VO@udlp.com
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re[2]: Limited Type Access - Again
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:14:21 -0600
Date: 2001-10-29T14:14:21-06:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <mailman.1004394165.6249.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org> (raw)
If equality and assignment are allowed in this case, then it is the back door
for comparing and assigning objects of limited type such as task type and
projected type. I think this door should be locked. In addition, comparing or
assignment two objects of a task type does not make sense. In fact, the language
prohibits two objects of a limited type from being compared or assigned. This is
the reason why equality and assignment of a limited type are prohibited.
Anh Vo
____________________Reply Separator____________________
Subject: Re: Limited Type Access - Again
Author: "Matthew Heaney" <mheaney@on2.com>
Date: 10/29/01 4:25 PM
<ANH_VO@udlp.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1004389122.4372.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org...
> It looks to me that equality and assignment do not make sense at all.
I don't understand your objection. The default equality operator for record
types is defined as the conjunction of equality of all the record
components. What behavior were you expecting?
next reply other threads:[~2001-10-29 20:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-10-29 20:14 ANH_VO [this message]
2001-10-29 23:02 ` Re[2]: Limited Type Access - Again Matthew Heaney
2001-10-30 7:07 ` Sergey Koshcheyev
2001-10-30 17:10 ` Mark Lundquist
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox