Re: type and subtype
- From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:21:48 +0200
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 08:41:48 -0700, Jeffrey Carter wrote:
> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>
>> I think that Ludovic's view is more consistent: checks are just a part of
>> the conversion which otherwise is an identity function, because *presently*
>> the representation is required to be same. But representation is an
>> implementation detail and thus cannot count. Moreover it is very desirable
>> to allow subtypes having different representations.
>
> because representations of subtypes are not required to be the same.
Depends on the definition, but I better agree with this. After all there
are other examples like String vs. String (1..20).
So, if representations aren't same then a conversion is required. Also
Ludovic was right.
--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
.
- References:
- type and subtype
- From: Douglas Chong
- Re: type and subtype
- From: Ludovic Brenta
- Re: type and subtype
- From: Jeffrey Carter
- Re: type and subtype
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- Re: type and subtype
- From: Jeffrey Carter
- type and subtype
- Prev by Date: Re: Isn't this in favour of Ada??
- Next by Date: Memory management clarification
- Previous by thread: Re: type and subtype
- Next by thread: Re: type and subtype
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|