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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9d0b383ee17c13af X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Keith Thompson Subject: Re: One type for all Date: 1999/07/18 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 502622836 References: <3783E0D2.5D74243@boeing.com> <3786741C.E73F1124@hso.link.com> <7mdobd$fu$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <1999Jul12.193436.1@eisner> <7mqueq$k7e$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7mttci$edv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Complaints-To: usenet@nusku.cts.com X-Trace: nusku.cts.com 932366442 21363 198.68.168.21 (19 Jul 1999 06:40:42 GMT) Organization: CTS Network Services NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Jul 1999 06:40:42 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-07-19T06:40:42+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar writes: [...] > So thanks, it is indeed the case that Pascal does NOT have > structural type equivalence, which is what I remembered (any > other conclusion would have been a big surprise!) Right. After I posted the previous article, it occurred to me that the phrase "same type" might be ambiguous -- for example, that two similar record type declarations might be considered to create two names for the same type. Fortunately, section 6 says: If a type representation does not consist only of a type identifier, then it represents an entirely new type. So yes, standard Pascal does not use structural type equivalence, at least not for record types. (Though I seem to recall that some dialects do use structural equivalence.) -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> One of the great tragedies of ancient history is that Helen of Troy lived before the invention of the champagne bottle.