Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:26672 comp.lang.misc:4363
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!uokmax!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok
From: ok@goanna.oz.au (Richard O'keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: C strongly typed?
Message-ID: <2963@goanna.oz.au>
Date: 8 Mar 90 00:11:17 GMT
References: <259@eiffel.UUCP> <1990Mar1.172526.28683@utzoo.uucp> <849@enea.se>
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 37

In article <849@enea.se>, sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
> C strongly typed?  If I write something like: (I don't speak C
> so the syntax is probably bogus.)

>     typedef apple int;
>     typedef orange int;
>     apple a;
>     orange b;
>     ...
>     a = b;

> Will a "modern" compiler object?

No, of course not.  Try it in Pascal:
	program main;
	type
	    apple  = integer;
	    orange = integer;
	var
	    a: apple;
	    o: orange;
	begin
	    a := o;
	end.
A Pascal compiler may complain that "o" is uninitialised, but it
*must* accept the assignment as well-typed.  (I tried it.)

Try it in Ada (not checked, as I haven't access to an Ada compiler):
	declare
	    subtype apple  is integer;
	    subtype orange is integer;
	    a: apple;
	    o: orange := 1;
	begin
	    a := o;
	end
Again, the assignment is well-typed.  Why should C be different?