Re: Type safety, C++ and code generation
- From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Apr 2006 15:46:21 -0400
"Randy Brukardt" <randy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Right. The problem with "limited private" is the loss of numeric literals
(and string literals in another use).
Right. And case statements. And arrays indexed by the type. Etc.
type Int is range 1 .. 10 without operators;
I wonder whether this "without operators" syntax forbids the use of
attributes ('Succ, for example).
- Bob
.
- References:
- Type safety, C++ and code generation
- From: Maciej Sobczak
- Re: Type safety, C++ and code generation
- From: REH
- Re: Type safety, C++ and code generation
- From: Maciej Sobczak
- Re: Type safety, C++ and code generation
- From: REH
- Re: Type safety, C++ and code generation
- From: Maciej Sobczak
- Re: Type safety, C++ and code generation
- From: Georg Bauhaus
- Re: Type safety, C++ and code generation
- From: Maciej Sobczak
- Re: Type safety, C++ and code generation
- From: Georg Bauhaus
- Re: Type safety, C++ and code generation
- From: brian . b . mcguinness
- Re: Type safety, C++ and code generation
- From: Jeffrey R. Carter
- Re: Type safety, C++ and code generation
- From: Randy Brukardt
- Type safety, C++ and code generation
- Prev by Date: Re: New home for the Debian Ada Policy
- Next by Date: Re: Type safety, C++ and code generation
- Previous by thread: Re: Type safety, C++ and code generation
- Next by thread: Re: Type safety, C++ and code generation
- Index(es):