Sujet : Re: Reduction expressions
De : ldo (at) *nospam* nz.invalid (Lawrence D'Oliveiro)
Groupes : comp.lang.adaDate : 21. Aug 2024, 01:30:54
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <va38ve$3i3ne$11@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3
User-Agent : Pan/0.159 (Vovchansk; )
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 22:23:27 +0100, Simon Wright wrote:
"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
Accum_Subtype (we changed the name since it is a subtype, not a type;
Amazing how a person (I) can have used Ada for ~40 years and still be
hard put to it to describe the difference, at least in a case like this
one, where the ARG members clearly see meanings that leave me lukewarm
if not cold. Maybe "the heart of twilight"?
I thought the difference was obvious. “subtype” is the C equivalent of
“typedef”, just giving a new name to an existing type. So
subtype A is B;
(where A and B are simple identifiers) is valid, whereas
type A is B;
is not: a “type” declaration always creates a new type: you have to write
at least
type A is new B;
and now you have two types with different names that are structurally the
same, but not compatible.