Re: Type safety, C++ and code generation

[<adaworks@sbcglobal.net>]

"Maciej Sobczak" <no.spam@no.spam.com> wrote in message 
news:e2qn8t$n13$1@sunnews.cern.ch...
>
> What about making different types really distinct?
>
> typedef ranged_type<int, 0, 100> R1;
> typedef ranged_type<int, 0, 100> R2;
> typedef ranged_type<int, 0, 101> R3;
>
>
> Above, R1 and R2 are *equal* to the compiler, but R3 is distinct from the 
> other two.
This example raises the issue of structural equivalence versus
name equivalence.  In Ada R1 and R2 would not be
equivalent.

Ada is designed for name equivalence.    Most other languages
are designed for structural equivalence.    In this respect, Ada
continues to be just a wee bit more type safe than languages
designed for structural equivalence.

Richard Riehle