From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>
Subject: Re: Non_Primitive Operations and Object.Operation Resolution
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:24:20 -0700
Date: 2016-04-22T11:24:20-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <nfdq28$7kc$1@dont-email.me> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c5de61ce-ed58-4818-86e5-6d519db355a8@googlegroups.com>
On 04/21/2016 11:27 PM, AdaMagica wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 21. April 2016 23:13:19 UTC+2 schrieb Jeffrey R. Carter:
>> That would probably be a good idea. Subtypes are not types and I'd think should
>> not be considered an ancestor of the type. Considering a subtype as an ancestor
>> seems like it would be a disaster.
>
> Only, subtypes have names, the type of a subtype is anonymous. What you see in a type declaration is the first subtype.
>
> Don't know whether this is related to your problen - just to corret the nomenclature.
Yes. However, the definition of "ancestor" uses the term "type", not "subtype".
--
Jeff Carter
"Go and boil your bottoms."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
01
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-22 18:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-20 23:59 Non_Primitive Operations and Object.Operation Resolution Jeffrey R. Carter
2016-04-21 20:28 ` Randy Brukardt
2016-04-21 21:13 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2016-04-22 6:27 ` AdaMagica
2016-04-22 18:24 ` Jeffrey R. Carter [this message]
2016-04-22 22:24 ` Randy Brukardt
2016-04-23 0:37 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2016-04-22 23:49 ` ytomino
2016-04-23 0:38 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox