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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,635cd9622b25ae59
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr14.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!4988f22a!not-for-mail
From: <adaworks@sbcglobal.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <e2q6p8$idj$1@sunnews.cern.ch>
   <1146143954.169807.207080@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
   <e2qj9l$edt$1@sunnews.cern.ch>
 <1146148380.102042.119860@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
 <e2qn8t$n13$1@sunnews.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Type safety, C++ and code generation
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
Message-ID: <o%35g.64094$_S7.49734@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.134.98.98
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr14.news.prodigy.com 1146408020 ST000 70.134.98.98 (Sun,
 30 Apr 2006 10:40:20 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 10:40:20 EDT
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: 
 [[PGW^WETZSMB_DX]BCBNWX@RJ_XPDLMN@GZ_GYO^BSZUSAANVUEAE[YETZPIWWI[FCIZA^NBFXZ_D[BFNTCNVPDTNTKHWXKB@X^B_OCJLPZ@ET_O[G\XSG@E\G[ZKVLBL^CJINM@I_KVIOR\T_M_AW_M[_BWU_HFA_]@A_A^SGFAUDE_DFTMQPFWVW[QPJN
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 14:40:20 GMT
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4000
Date: 2006-04-30T14:40:20+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"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