From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>
Subject: Re: Redefining "in" "operator"
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 19:07:34 +0100
Date: 2018-02-06T19:07:34+01:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <p5cqt7$kqo$1@dont-email.me> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <p5au0o$e0i$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
On 02/06/2018 01:48 AM, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>
> Well, Ada 2012 also allows it to be a (set) of expressions as well. But your
> basic point applies: there aren't any function parameters that are subtypes
> or that are sets of expressions. One could imagine allowing a pair of
> expressions, but that's just "=" (and "in" in fact uses user-defined "="
> when necessary).
Yes, sorry; thanks for the clarification. When I first learned "in", it was
subtypes all the way down. Ada 95 added classes of tagged types, and Ada 12, as
you noted, expanded it further. None of these can be an operand of an operator.
But when faced with a question like this I sometimes revert to my original
understanding.
--
Jeff Carter
"What I wouldn't give for a large sock with horse manure in it."
Annie Hall
42
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-06 18:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-05 16:26 Redefining "in" "operator" Alejandro R. Mosteo
2018-02-05 16:39 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2018-02-06 0:48 ` Randy Brukardt
2018-02-06 18:07 ` Jeffrey R. Carter [this message]
2018-02-05 16:43 ` J-P. Rosen
2018-02-05 17:23 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2018-02-05 17:41 ` Alejandro R. Mosteo
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox